Moses’ fasts on the the holy mountain (Ex 24:18; 34:28; Deut 9:9) and his intercession for Israel (Deut 9:25), Elijah’s journey to Mt. Horeb (1 Ki 19:8), Ezekiel’s lying on one side (Ezek 4:6), and Christ’s fast in the wilderness (Mt 4:2).And what to do the texts say:
Exodus 24:18 And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.
Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Deuteronomy 9:9 When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:
Deuteronomy 9:25 Thus I fell down before the LORD forty days and forty nights, as I fell down at the first; because the LORD had said he would destroy you.
The following was curiously omitted by the author:
Deuteronomy 10:10 And I stayed in the mount, according to the first time, forty days and forty nights; and the LORD hearkened unto me at that time also, and the LORD would not destroy thee.
1 Kings 19:8 And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God.
Ezekiel 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
Oddly, the author didn't include the other synoptic accounts:
Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
Except for the Ezekiel reference, these are all examples of fasting for forty days. But note:
a) These are not prescriptive. There is nothing about these passages that suggests "imitate this example." Moreover, while there are three examples (Moses, Elijah, and Jesus) none is described as imitating the other.
b) These are supernatural and miraculous. No normal human being under ordinary circumstances can survive for 40 days without food and water. These are not part of some general plan of godly living.
c) These are isolated, not annual, events. Moses apparently fasted for forty days more than once, but it was an occasional, not regular fast. The others fasted for forty days once.
In short, these fasts are only similar to Lent in a very superficial way. Lent is simply dietary restrictions for forty days (not even consecutive days) and the way it is practiced in places like the U.S. and U.K., it's' not even really that.
The Ezekiel example is just a strange inclusion. For you will see that although a special diet is mentioned, it is not simply for forty days:
Ezekiel 4:1-17
Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city, even Jerusalem: and lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about. Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel.a) As you can, Ezekiel's curious diet was not for forty days, but for nearly four hundred days.
Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it. And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege.
Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.
And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it. Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink.
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith. Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment: that they may want bread and water, and be astonied one with another, and consume away for their iniquity.
b) Moreover, the whole point of the diet was to illustrate the coming siege, destruction, and dispersal of the Israelites.
c) Thus, for example, the dung-baked bread was to be dung-baked to illustrate that the Israelites were going to be eating defiled bread. The odd combination of ingredients illustrates the destruction of the usual separation that Israel had experienced. The measured food and water illustrate the times of austerity that were coming. The "eat it as barley cakes" is to show that these austere portions would be considered a blessing.
In short, the Ezekiel fast (if we can call it that) points forward to a curse from God. It is descriptive and prophetic, not prescriptive. Like the fasts, it is occasional - not annual (indeed it could not be annual on this planet).
This seems absurd, ridiculous, and frankly beneath response. Yet it is apparently being offered on Facebook (evidence) as though it were a serious defense of the practice of the Roman communion.
Of course, none of this is to suggest that fasting, in itself, is wrong. Nevertheless, Christian fasting is purposeful and, usually, secret. Jesus taught us:
Matthew 6:16-18
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
See people with ash daubed on their face? They are not following this teaching.
-TurretinFan
"See people with ash daubed on their face? They are not following this teaching."
ReplyDeleteDo you not think RCs can consider Ash Wed. an evangelization/witness tool? This sounds similar to criticisms of Tebow for his public displays using Matt 6:6.
"Do you not think RCs can consider Ash Wed. an evangelization/witness tool? This sounds similar to criticisms of Tebow for his public displays using Matt 6:6. "
ReplyDelete"wash thy face" seems pretty clear
Interestingly enough, that is the very Gospel passage which is read at Mass on Ash Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteIn the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus condemns doing certain things from a prideful intention, even though the same activity can be noble when performed from a different intention. That is how we reconcile Matt 5:16 ("Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works") and Matt 6:1 ("Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them"). Similarly, praying on a street corner is wrong if your intention is to be thought pious (Matt 6:5), but alright if your intention is to prevent abortions. And walking around with ash on your face is wrong if you want people to admire your austerity, but alright if you do it because the Church recommends it (for some reason such as public witness), even though you personally find it a bit embarrassing.
"alright if you do it because the Church recommends it"
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough your comment perfectly demonstrates what differentiates biblical Christianity from the gospels according to Rome, Brooklyn, and Salt Lake City.
"Interestingly enough, that is the very Gospel passage which is read at Mass on Ash Wednesday."
ReplyDeleteI wonder if that makes it better or worse?
"In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus condemns doing certain things from a prideful intention, even though the same activity can be noble when performed from a different intention."
Are you mentioning this generality to avoid addressing the particular point?
"That is how we reconcile Matt 5:16 ("Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works") and Matt 6:1 ("Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them")."
Perhaps, but again - not the situation facing a person about to walk out of the church with the imposed ashes.
"Similarly, praying on a street corner is wrong if your intention is to be thought pious (Matt 6:5), but alright if your intention is to prevent abortions."
Unlike Matthew 5:16, there is not corresponding admonition to use prayer as a form of protest, is there? I don't mean from your church, but from Scripture.
"And walking around with ash on your face is wrong if you want people to admire your austerity, but alright if you do it because the Church recommends it (for some reason such as public witness), even though you personally find it a bit embarrassing."
Your church cannot trump Christ. Sorry, Ben.
The problem is that you can't afford to be consistent. Consider this "command": "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you(Matthew 6:6).
ReplyDeleteI suppose then that no one has ever seen Mr. Turrentinfan pray. This also means that all public prayers are displeasing to God and worse are all televised Protestant "worship" services. It also means that no one can pray for someone else because it would violate the secrecy requirement. Can you afford to be a consistent "bible alone" Protestant?
Dozie that command (and there's no reason for you to be mocking our Lord's commands with scare quotes) is only a portion of the command:
ReplyDeleteMatthew 6:5-6 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
This teaches us that these refer to personal devotional prayers, as contrasted with congregational prayer, meal-time prayers, and the like. These personal devotional prayers are not to be shared publicly, which does have interesting implications noted by B.D. for the Roman anti-abortion movement.
"This teaches us that these refer to personal devotional prayers"
ReplyDeleteVery Wrong!!! The limitation to "personal devotional prayers" is simply the prejudice you bring to the text. Jesus never said a thing about personal devotional prayers nor would the concept even make sense to him. What you do is interpret the scriptures as you see fit, often without care and with much hurry while denying even more competent and rightful authorities the right to properly teach the true christian faith.
All I can say is when I read my Bible I see example after example of prayers that were personal.
ReplyDeleteOne only has to understand the nature of prayer in light of the free gift of Righteousness and the resulting realities that open up within one's soul because of it.
The best description of those realities is found at John 17 verse 3, in my view.
God is the One who initiates this relationship.
We see God coming to a number of the key people of the Bible from the book of Genesis onward.
I am not wise enough to know why anyone would even refute this refutation of the public nature of the display of ashes on one's forehead?
I am wise enough to know it is unwise, though!
Dozie:
ReplyDeleteYour comment just occupies space in this comment box. You don't tell us what the verse means - you give no valid reason for objecting. You just hurl insults. Go away for a while and come back when you have figured out what the verse means. Then, tell us what it means, and explain your conclusion.
-TurretinFan
You have made a career out of criticizing the Catholic Church and the Called to Communion folks but when even a minimal challenge is thrown at you, you grow impatient, offer no meaningful response, feign annoyance and want to take your “ball and go home”.
ReplyDeleteThen you allege: “ You don't tell us what the verse means - you give no valid reason for objecting”
First of all, I object to your insinuation of what Christ was talking about because you absolutely have no competence to tell anyone what the savior should have said or what he was implying. Your suggestion that Christ was referring to “personal devotional prayers” is nothing more than a conjecture on your path. You have no reason to make the suggestion since Christ said no such thing.
Just curious; did you get this idea from someone else or did you come up with it after due consideration? This is an important question because I need to understand better how Protestantism works.
I belong to a teaching Church and for me to make sense of any part of the scriptures, I only need to listen to the Church, and observe how the same Church acts. The Church interprets the scriptures by what she allows or rejects. But, the Church has the competence and the authority and I am asking you about your authority for making the claim you make, especially since you swear by what is found in “scripture alone”.
Again, who taught you that it is ok to put words in Christ’s mouth?
BTW, I visit your blog only once in a long while and I intend to keep it that way.
I'm still not sure what this verse means to you or the RCC. I'd appreciate the infallible interpretation provided by the RCC on the scripture referenced. All you've done is attack TF without providing a refutation of his argument.
ReplyDelete"Are you mentioning this generality to avoid addressing the particular point?"
ReplyDeleteI mention it because my position is that the command "wash thy face" is an instance of this generality.
"Perhaps, but again - not the situation facing a person about to walk out of the church with the imposed ashes."
I mentioned the case of Matt 5:16 and Matt 6:1 to establish a principle which is relevant to the present case, i.e., that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus condemns doing certain things from a prideful intention, even though the same activity can be noble when performed from a different intention.
"Unlike Matthew 5:16, there is not corresponding admonition to use prayer as a form of protest, is there? I don't mean from your church, but from Scripture."
There's plenty of admonition in Scripture to speak out against evil (the prophets, John the Baptist, etc.) And what else are you supposed to do when you are standing out there but pray? After all, Scripture says "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17).
"Your church cannot trump Christ. Sorry, Ben."
I never said it could.
"the Roman anti-abortion movement."
I'm surprised that you cede the territory so readily. There are Protestants in the pro-life movement as well.
turretinfan,
ReplyDeleteMay I ask your qualifications for running a Reformed apologetics blog? Do you have a PhD in theology? Philosophy? Biblical studies? How do you maneuver around the following verse? "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" Matthew 23:9. You certainly do maneuver around this verse and reconcile it with other passages of Scripture., but you disallow others from doing the same.
I also encourage you to reread your past several blog posts and comments. They are vitriolic and enormously bitter. No love shines though--just hatred, especially towards those dead priests, but towards Roman Catholics more widely. Employing apologetics to try to convert Roman Catholics is fundamentally different than hating Roman Catholics. "If I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."
Ryan
"It's readily apparent from the text, regardless of how I came to notice it".
ReplyDeleteYou have not been able to demonstrate that Christ’s command: “when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you" refers to “personal devotional prayers”. The phrase with which you are trying to clarify Christ’s command is not found in the passage and must be inserted by some kind of interpretative logic. To say that your clarification is apparent in the text is to pervert the holy word. Your clarification may be correct; I am just saying that the limitation (as to the extent to which the command applies) you place on this particular command has to be placed by an interpretative authority - the authority which you do not have. Certainly, others may read the same passage and say it is a general principle with respect to prayers.
"This is the attitude my friend calls "They don't sweat that Bible stuff"
Every Catholic has to understand that he or she is not the final authority with respect to bible interpretation – something foreign to a Protestant mind.
“It's just your church doing what she wants and refusing to be corrected by Scripture when she errs”.
Thankfully, the Church is not accountable to anybody but Christ Himself. This is very liberating.
“No one gave your church the authority to set aside the commands of Jesus Christ”
The Church has the word of God and guards it against the corruption of the enemy and from the attach of those who oppose the Church of God.
“Scripture calls the Bereans, noble for testing Paul's teachings by Scripture. You tell me what their competence and authority was, and you will know mine”.
You have no idea what the Berean encounter with Paul teaches. The Bereans have been reading the Scriptures long before encountering Paul but did not understand the implication of what they were reading. Paul showed them the implications and when they went back and read the same passages, those passages then made sense to them. This has been explained to you before if you have followed Robert Sungenis’ encounters with Mr. James White.
"Thankfully, the Church is not accountable to anybody but Christ Himself. This is very liberating".
ReplyDeleteShould have been: Thankfully, the Church is not accountable to anybody but Christ Himself with respect to her interpretation of the Christian scriptures.
What interpretation of Scripture ? The last time I checked the RCC has not infallibly defined interpretation of NO VERSES IN SCRIPTURE . Would you like to show me where is the claimed dogmatically defined interpretation of Scipture that you appear to claim that the RCC has ?
ReplyDeleteIf I am to take your reply there in a serious manner than I conclude that the RCC does not even have Scripture as a partial rule of faith and has replaced Scripture by making itself supreme over Scripture. That is really what the RCC apologetics of Robert Sungenis really amounts to if we take his arguments at face value. Sola Ecclesia is evident there !
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Christ was criticizing the discrepancy between the pharisees outward piety and inward pride and self-righteousness. If one receives ashes simply for show, with no repentance in his heart, then certainly he runs afoul Christ's command. However, especially given that this day occurs but once a year, I find that you are being overly scrupulous, clinging to the letter while ignoring the spirit of the Lord's words. God bless.
ReplyDelete* As a preface, if anyone responds, turretin or others, and I do not responsd it is because for Lent, as part of my intention of reducing various distractions and my criminal amount of time spent online, I am choosing to withold from writing in forums/ blogs / FB and the like.
ReplyDelete"Of course, there's no mention of Lent in Scripture. So, how could it be Biblical?"
Many things are not mentioned in Scripture, but that fact taken alone is not compelling.
Something that I reflected on a while back is how to understand the words biblical and unbiblical and non-biblical.
Does biblical mean:
- mentioned/desribed/narrated in Scripture
- prescribed by Scripture
-consistent with Scripture
?
I think that the last two fit the word well. The first can be a little "iffy". Certainly not every incident/practice/behavior that is recorded in Scripture is pleasing to God.
So someone could, technically, say multiple wives per man is "biblical", but this would be grossly misleading.
Unbiblical I take to mean contrary to Scripture, more specifically, contrary to the truths of faith and morals.
Non-biblical I take to mean, outside of Scripture and/or unaddressed by Scripture (e.g. separation of powers/ the Constitution).
"Matthew 6:16-18
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. "
Well certainly I don't encourage Catholics to be flaunting their fasting commitment. "Look at me I'm fasting!!" No no. Their focus should not be on the perception of the people who surround the, e.g. co-workers, friends, the people in line at the store, etc, but on God, as he reads the heart, and that is who they are to live for.
But to consider this passage as grounds for condemnation of the imposition of ashes, this raises implications that that would be of concern to non-Catholics as well. The fish symbol on the back of people's cars? Wearing cross necklaces? Are we to dispense of all outward signs of inner repentance and devotion to Christ?
Also, the importance of the ashes on the forehead lies not in those who behold that sight, but on the bearer, the he/she know what the ashes symbolize.
I wrote: "Of course, there's no mention of Lent in Scripture. So, how could it be Biblical?"
ReplyDeleteAnavt: "Many things are not mentioned in Scripture, but that fact taken alone is not compelling."
It should be. Even if you imagine that there can be oral traditions outside of Scripture, those would be extra-Biblical traditions - not Biblical traditions.
"Something that I reflected on a while back is how to understand the words biblical and unbiblical and non-biblical."
Biblical means "taught by the Bible."
"Does biblical mean: - mentioned/desribed/narrated in Scripture - prescribed by Scripture -consistent with Scripture?"
See above.
"I think that the last two fit the word well."
I hope you mean the first two. The last one just means that the Scripture does not contradict the thing. But that's like saying Martians are "Biblical" just because they don't contradict the Bible. Hopefully that's sufficiently obviously absurd. Or to put it another way, the third category (like the first category) is over-inclusive - after all, everything that is taught by Scripture is also consistent with Scripture.
"The first can be a little "iffy". Certainly not every incident/practice/behavior that is recorded in Scripture is pleasing to God."
Sure. Not all narrated events are narrated with approval.
"So someone could, technically, say multiple wives per man is "biblical", but this would be grossly misleading."
It would be misleading, because the incidents are narrated, but not with approval.
"Unbiblical I take to mean contrary to Scripture, more specifically, contrary to the truths of faith and morals."
It's possible for a historical position (like evolution) to be contrary to the historical truths of Scripture. But generally anything that is not taught or implied in the Bible is unbiblical.
"Non-biblical I take to mean, outside of Scripture and/or unaddressed by Scripture (e.g. separation of powers/ the Constitution)."
That would seem to swallow the third category, to the extent that the third category is just things that are not contradictory to Scripture.
"Well certainly I don't encourage Catholics to be flaunting their fasting commitment. "Look at me I'm fasting!!" No no. Their focus should not be on the perception of the people who surround the, e.g. co-workers, friends, the people in line at the store, etc, but on God, as he reads the heart, and that is who they are to live for."
So, you agree that they should each, in Jesus words, "Wash thy face"? If so, we are in agreement.
"But to consider this passage as grounds for condemnation of the imposition of ashes, this raises implications that that would be of concern to non-Catholics as well. The fish symbol on the back of people's cars? Wearing cross necklaces? Are we to dispense of all outward signs of inner repentance and devotion to Christ?"
Suppose that is the implication? Will you follow it?
"Also, the importance of the ashes on the forehead lies not in those who behold that sight, but on the bearer, the he/she know what the ashes symbolize. "
Then washing them off before leaving the church should be no problem (there is a bowl of water by the door of most RC churches, and there is a washroom/restroom/water closet in most as well).
-TurretinFan