{B) In the NT.— 1. Tht Jewish practice.— There is an allusion in Ac 27" to ' the Fast,' which was 80 par excellence, i.e. the Day of Atonement. But the chief point which we learn from NT is that by this time frequent additional fasts had become customary with those in Judaism who desired to lead a specially religious life, e.g. Anna (Lk 2"). Again, the Pharisee in the parable says, ' I fast twice in the week' (Lk 18"). The allusion is to the two weekly fast-days, Thursday and Mon- day, on the former of which days Moses was said to have gone up ii.to the Mount, and on the latter to have come down from it. Mention is made of them frequently in the Talmud. There is also an interesting reference to them in the Didnche 8', where Christians are biiklen not to fast with the hypocrites on the second and fifth days of the week, but on the fourth and on Friday. Further, the question asked of Jesus by the disciples of John and of the Pharisees (Mt9'*, Mk2'», Lk 5"), reveals the interesting fact that teachers who had gathered about them bands of scholars, used to give to their disciples s])ccial rules on the subject.
2. The teaching if Jesu.i. — There are two i)as- sages only, but those significant ones, {a} That in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6'""'*). Our Lord's whole aim here appears to be to secure perfect purity and simidicity of intention, a 'fasting unto God' (cf. Zee 7') in the fullest and deepest sense. This would be the most ell'ectual cure for every error, practical or even intellectual (comp. His teaching on almsgiving and prayer, Mt 6''", and Bee art. on former).
{h) llis answer to the question of the disciples of John and of the Pharisees (Mt 9"", Mk 2"'-, Lk 5^'^). This answer throws light on His whole method and aim. To understaml it we must bear in mind the ([uestion which called it forth. There is no reason to believe that either our Lord or His disciples failed to keep any day of fasting which was generally observed by religious members of the class of artisans and small tiiules- men in Galilee, such as the Day of Atonement. But He had imposed upon them no frequent additional fasts. Ho defends them from the stricture j)a.ssed on them, and in so doing replies to the criticism of His own teaching, which was
implied, by setting forth the principles on which He acted. He reliained from prescribing forms, not that He condemned them as mischievous or useless, but because it would have been the wrong end at which to begin. The course which He adopted was alone fitting, in view of the far-reach- ing change of character and thought which lie designed to efl'ect.
The precise force of the distinction which Jeaus drew between the d.ay3 while the hridegrooin was present and those when he should be removed, deserves to be marked. The time of Hij presence on earth was a Mejssianic time, a foretaste of the restitu- tion of all thinj,'3. The thou;;lit tliat fasting would be dis- continued in Messiah's days was already familiar to the Jewish mind. The lan^a^c of Zee sug^'ested it (819), and thus, as it is interesting to note, Jesus addeil emphasis to the claim to be the Messiali, which He virtually made in referring to Himself as the bridej^room, by what He said as to the unsuitability of requiring fasts from His discii>les then. We may believe also that He wished them afterwards to look back to the time that they companied with Him as one of joy. But His clear pre- vision that the perfect fultilmcnt of the promise was not yet at hand, and that a period of s.-Ldness and trial would intervene before it, is not less remarkable, and His words unquestionably imply that there would be a place for fasting in the coming dispensation. Further, the inference which has frequently been drawn from them by Protestant commentators, that in the Christian Church fasting was to be practised only when dictated by special feelings of sorrow, and hence that it was to be a matter of individual choice, condned to occasions of wide- spread and exceptional calamity, hardly seems to be justified ; for He characterizes broadly the difference between two whole periods.
On the other hand, in the parables which follow, and in His line of conduct, to wliich attention had been directed, lie plainly shows that He intended questions of outw.ard observance to be judged with reference to new princijiles wliich he incul- cated, and that He left them to be decided by His Church under the guidance of the Spirit Who should come in His name (but see Hort, Jud. Chr. p. 24).
This intention was shown ahke by what He did and did not conform to in the religious usages around Him. We have noticed that the keeping of the law of Moses was not in ques- tion on the occasion under consideration. But in point of fact His attitude to that law, the res])oct for it which He en- couraged byword and example, His silence as to its approach- ing abrogation, were based on the same principle as the non imposition of new forms. He intended the rites of the Mosaic law to be set aside or changed only as the result of a new spiritual gro\vth.