This is certainly a reasonable explanation of why people may decide to fast, though I suspect many fast for reasons beyond what you describe.
What I wonder is if we believe fasting to be what we're called to do, or if we simply have examples of people fasting for various reasons. Should we teach it as something pious Christians do? Or should it be presented as, "Some may do this, some may never do it. Fasting is a personal decision that bears no moral or righteous weight apart from a person's reason to do it. You are not missing out if you do not fast."
The best argument for necessary fasting is from a Matt. 17:21, which I'm sure you disregarded knowing that it is not original to the text. While we may know this, many Christians don't, and include that verse in their understanding of fasting.
Thanks for engaging, Drew. I agree with your observation that there may be many other reasons to fast. This certainly isn’t a comprehensive guide, just one particular angle on it. Even the passage I looked at digs deeper than I went (Matthew 9:16–17). I hope to take a closer look at those verses and others in the weeks ahead.
Your question on whether fasting is a spiritual necessity or moral imperative is a good one. A brief survey of the NT, especially the epistles, shows many exhortations to pray but relatively few exhortations to fast by comparison. Holding that in tension with more explicit teaching like this one from Matthew 9 seems to lead to a “good, not necessary” conclusion.
Matthew 17:21... yes. Thanks for bringing that up. I agree that it’s unlikely Matthew 17:21 was part of the original autographs. Nor do the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of the parallel Mark 9:29 include “and fasting.” On top of being misunderstood, I believe these passages were also often misapplied. The context of both is specifically exorcism, not necessarily a universal rule of prayer.
This is certainly a reasonable explanation of why people may decide to fast, though I suspect many fast for reasons beyond what you describe.
What I wonder is if we believe fasting to be what we're called to do, or if we simply have examples of people fasting for various reasons. Should we teach it as something pious Christians do? Or should it be presented as, "Some may do this, some may never do it. Fasting is a personal decision that bears no moral or righteous weight apart from a person's reason to do it. You are not missing out if you do not fast."
The best argument for necessary fasting is from a Matt. 17:21, which I'm sure you disregarded knowing that it is not original to the text. While we may know this, many Christians don't, and include that verse in their understanding of fasting.
Thanks for engaging, Drew. I agree with your observation that there may be many other reasons to fast. This certainly isn’t a comprehensive guide, just one particular angle on it. Even the passage I looked at digs deeper than I went (Matthew 9:16–17). I hope to take a closer look at those verses and others in the weeks ahead.
Your question on whether fasting is a spiritual necessity or moral imperative is a good one. A brief survey of the NT, especially the epistles, shows many exhortations to pray but relatively few exhortations to fast by comparison. Holding that in tension with more explicit teaching like this one from Matthew 9 seems to lead to a “good, not necessary” conclusion.
Matthew 17:21... yes. Thanks for bringing that up. I agree that it’s unlikely Matthew 17:21 was part of the original autographs. Nor do the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of the parallel Mark 9:29 include “and fasting.” On top of being misunderstood, I believe these passages were also often misapplied. The context of both is specifically exorcism, not necessarily a universal rule of prayer.