WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT DIVORCE?

The institution of marriage between a man and a woman goes back to the beginning of Creation and has been recognized by every culture as the foundation of both family and civilization itself. God created two sexes, “male and female” (Gen. 1:27, 5:2), and He did so for the mutual benefit of both genders. The man and the woman bring different strengths into the relationship, and by doing so strengthen both the relationship and the family. When the two sexes come together, God says they become one flesh (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31; 1 Cor. 6:16). The book of Malachi points out that another reason God made the man and woman one flesh in the covenant of marriage was so that the children would be godly: “Has not the LORD made them [husband and wife] one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring” (Mal. 2:14 and 15).

Sadly, it sometimes happens in a marriage that the differences between a man and woman, instead of being appreciated and capitalized upon by the couple, are the cause of friction, division and even divorce. Marriage goes back to Genesis, but so do reasons for divorce. God understands that sometimes the relationship between a man and a woman becomes so hurtful that divorce is the only practical solution, and so He allowed for it in the Mosaic Law (Exod. 21:11; Deut. 24:1). Jesus Christ correctly stated that the foundational reason for divorce was people’s hardness of heart, but pointed out that God did not design marriage to end in divorce. Jesus said, “…Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning” (Matt. 19:8).

Christians have discussed and debated the subject of divorce for hundreds of years, and different groups have different beliefs about it. One of the more hurtful doctrines held by some groups is that God never allows divorce. These groups do not allow the same freedom that God allowed in the Law of Moses, and Jesus allowed for in his teachings; that there are times when divorce may be necessary for the health and safety of one of the partners or the children. Another false doctrine about divorce is that God allows for divorce only if one of the spouses has committed adultery. That belief comes from reading the words of Jesus without understanding the culture of his time or the entire scope of the Word of God, i.e., what else the Bible says about the subject.

To understand what Jesus said about divorce, we must read what he said in light of the context, the culture, and the Mosaic Law. We must never think that the Bible is like one of those books of unconnected wise sayings that some people have on their coffee tables. No verse stands on its own, but is interconnected with every other verse and with the general theme of the Bible. That means to really understand what the truth is on any subject we have to pay attention to how all the verses on the subject relate to each other, and that means we have to study the entire Bible. Jesus’ statements about divorce are recorded in Matthew 5:31 and 32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; and Luke 16:18, but there is also material in the Old Testament and other places in the New Testament that must be considered. As for the culture in Jesus’ time, the rabbinic school of the great Jewish teacher, Rabbi Hillel (ca. 60 B.C. – 20 A.D.), was teaching that a man could divorce his wife for anything she did that displeased him. It was a “no fault” system of divorce, and divorce was becoming a major social problem. We get a glimpse of the cultural problem of easy divorce in Jesus’ time by the question the Pharisees asked Jesus: “…Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (Matt. 19:3). Jesus answered them in a way that promoted marriage and the family (Matt. 19:4-9).

It is important to notice that Jesus is never recorded giving a complete teaching on marriage and divorce. Instead, he addressed the question he was asked and the cultural problem of his time, and tried to get people to look at the posture of their hearts and see the purpose of marriage from God’s perspective. Jesus never meant his teaching about marriage and divorce to be pulled from its cultural context and separated from the Law of Moses, which completed it. If Jesus had given a complete teaching on divorce, then he would have mentioned the rights granted to women under the Mosaic Law. Jesus did not mention women in his answer because he did not need to in order to emphasize God’s heart for marriage and relationship, or to reply to the question he had been asked. Jesus did not come to abolish the Mosaic Law, but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17).

To understand God’s heart about marriage, we need Scripture and logic. It is clear from the Bible and history that the intent of marriage is to benefit both partners and to raise godly children. Nevertheless, there are times when the marriage becomes harmful to one or both of the partners, or the children. At that point the marriage may need to be dissolved, and in certain circumstances God allowed for the dissolution of the marriage. The book of Exodus contains important information about divorce. To fully understand the verses, however, we must be aware that the Law of Moses allowed for a man to have more than one wife (Exod. 21:10; Lev. 18:18; Deut. 21:15).

Exodus 21:10 and 11
(10) If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
(11) If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

What we see clearly revealed in Exodus 21 is that when a man and a woman enter into a marriage covenant, each is responsible to provide for the other. What the woman would provide in the marriage is not specifically spelled out in Exodus because it was so well understood in the culture and because the woman did not usually have the power to divorce a man unless that privilege was specifically granted to her by local or current law or custom. In contrast to the assumed responsibilities of the woman, Exodus 21:11 specifically states that a man must provide food, clothing, and “marital rights,” or the woman is free to leave the relationship.

We must understand the three things listed in Exodus 21:11 in light of the Old Testament culture, not our modern culture. The “food” was the woman’s daily food that sustained her. Her “clothing” meant clothing, and also by extension, a place to stay, her shelter. Some poor people did not have enough money to own a house or tent, and slept under their heavy outer robes at night (Exod. 22:27), so “clothing” often meant both clothing and shelter. A man was responsible, as much as he was able, to provide clothing and shelter for his wife.

The third thing in the list, “marital rights,” refers to sexual intercourse. Although this hopefully included loving affection, in the context of the Old Testament culture, the most important thing it meant was that the woman would have the chance to have children. In an age when bank accounts, Social Security, hospitals, and retirement homes were non-existent, it was a woman’s children who provided her protection and care throughout her life and especially in her old age. A man who would not have sexual intercourse with his wife because he had another wife or wives thus subjected her to the danger of getting sick, hurt, or becoming elderly without any means of help and support. This was very cruel indeed, and God would not tolerate it. If a man treated his wife this poorly, the Law said she was free to leave.

Exodus 21:11 is crucial to our understanding of marriage and divorce. To really appreciate what it says, we need to know that the Law of Moses contains God’s heart for healthy, blessed, and godly families and society. However, someone may say, “But we are not under the Law today.” That is only partly true. The New Testament contains the phrase that we are not under the Law, but that phrase must be read and understood in its proper context (Rom. 6:14 and 15; Gal. 5:18). The “Law” has many parts. There are moral regulations, social regulations, civil regulations, and regulations that are tied to the Temple and priestly system.

Jesus freed us from the curse of the Law, the Levitical codes, and the sacrificial regulations, but he did not free us from all of the civil and social regulations, which is why so much of it is repeated in the New Testament. After all, the commandments to not steal, not commit adultery, not covet, not build unsafe buildings, to give to the poor, to punish evildoers, etc., are still in force. Furthermore, the Law embodies God’s wisdom for families and society, which is why Paul wrote that “…the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12). The Law is holy and good, and we today are not free from God’s wisdom, or His desire that our families be a safe haven for each member.

God spoke again about divorce in Deuteronomy, but He never gave a specific reason a man could divorce his wife.

Deuteronomy 24:1
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house,

God never tells us what the “something” was about the woman that was “indecent.” To be sure, if God wanted to give us reasons for divorce He could have done so. He could have given us a detailed list, but He did not. What does that mean? To Rabbi Hillel, and the people in Jesus’ time who followed his teaching, it meant that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, no matter how small. To Jesus, it meant just the opposite: God gave no reason for divorce because the foundational reason for it was the hardness of people’s hearts. Is adultery a “reason” for divorce? No. Many couples have weathered rough periods and even adultery, but stuck it out, worked through their problems, and now are happily married. Divorce boils down to an issue of the heart, not a specific “reason” that forces the couple to divorce. Of course, some people’s hearts are hard, even to the point they endanger a spouse or child. The loving heart of our Father God does not force people to stay in dangerous or abusive relationships. If someone’s heart is that hard, the partner is free to leave.

By the time of Christ, people had forgotten God’s heart about marriage, and men were divorcing their wives for all kinds of things, frequently just to be with other women. Even King Herod had married his brother’s wife (Mark 6:17). The religious leaders came to Jesus to ask him about the Law, and pointed out that Moses allowed for divorce. Yes, Moses (actually, God) allowed for divorce, but to these hard-hearted religious leaders, God’s regulations were mostly a matter of the academic study of what was permissible. They were not trying to rebuild God’s care for the family back into their society. In contrast, Jesus desperately wanted families and society to be whole again. He did not want to contribute to the “I am right and you are wrong about the interpretation of the Law” attitude that was so prevalent in his society, so he answered the leaders in a way that spoke so highly of the unity in marriage that even his disciples were astounded, and said, “…If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt. 19:10).

Jesus spoke to the religious leaders about God’s heart for marriage.

Matthew 19:4-6
(4) “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
(5) and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
(6) So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Furthermore, Jesus told them that if a man divorced his wife for reasons other than sexual immorality, he was an adulterer. He even made that statement in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:31 and 32). Jesus was not trying to set up a new universal standard for divorce regardless of sex, which would annul the Law of Moses, ignoring how the marriage regulations in the Law of Moses protected women from men who refused to provide for them or treated them cruelly. Jesus was speaking to men in the context of his “easy divorce” culture, and was pointing out how important marriage was to God. It was not valid in the eyes of God to dissolve a marriage for all the selfish, “no fault” excuses that people were using in his day and time. Jesus could have also quoted the book of Malachi: “‘I hate divorce,’ says the LORD God of Israel…” (Mal. 2:16).

Sadly, many people now read Jesus’ words and assert that the one and only reason for divorce is if one of the spouses commits adultery. There is a possibility that Jesus’ words have not been translated correctly, but that is too much to delve into in this short article. What is perfectly clear, however, is that we must always compile information from the whole Word to get the truth on a subject. No verse, even spoken by Jesus, stands on its own. We can see this by comparing what Jesus said about divorce in the different Gospels.

For example, in the gospel of Mark, Jesus said that if a person divorced and then remarried he committed adultery: “…Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11 and 12). Here in Mark, Jesus says divorce and remarriage is committing adultery, but in other Gospels he says remarriage is not adultery in the case of divorce due to sexual immorality. Thus we see that even what Jesus said in different Gospels needs to be compared to get the complete truth about what he taught. In the same way, the teachings of Jesus need to be compared with verses throughout the whole Bible to get the truth on any subject. After all, does it make sense that Jesus would say a woman had to stay with a man who was abusing and endangering her, even though God’s Law in Exodus said she could leave him? No, Jesus would not be that unloving, nor would he go so completely against the expressed wisdom of God.

The entire Bible has to fit together on any subject, and that is certainly the case with divorce. In that light, the Apostle Paul did not contradict either the Mosaic Law or Jesus. He stated the heart of God clearly and concisely.

1 Corinthians 7:10 and 11b
(10) To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
(11b) …And a husband must not divorce his wife.

These verses clearly state the will of God. Divorce is hurtful; it is destructive. Furthermore, many “intolerable” situations can be tolerated and relationships can be restored if each partner is willing to let go of their hurt and pride, draw strength and hope from the Lord, and get help in getting back together. Unfortunately, some well meaning people take these words of Paul to be the unbending will of God, and say that Christians must never divorce for any reason. However, as with every other verse of Scripture, we must interpret them in light of the context and then the whole Word of God. Immediately after saying a wife must not separate from her husband, the Bible says, “But if she does….” Thus, just like in the Law of Moses, the will of God that couples stay together is clearly stated, but allowance is made for cases in which they do not.

After writing that a woman must not divorce her husband, Paul writes that if a woman does leave her husband, she should remain unmarried or be rejoined to her ex-husband (1 Cor. 7:11). Again, this is what God would ideally want to happen. However, once again allowances are made for people who do not obey this command. The very same chapter that says to not divorce, or remain unmarried if you do divorce, says, “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned….” (1 Cor. 7:27 and 28 – ESV).

Does it seem confusing that God says, “Do not divorce,” but then says if you do get a divorce do not remarry; but then says, if you do remarry “you have not sinned”? The Bible may seem confusing, but it is because life is confusing and relationships are confusing. Thankfully, we have a loving God who is willing to love us and work with us in whatever situation we find ourselves. He does not hold us to a single, sometimes unreachable standard, but like any loving parent, loves His children and helps them no matter what their situation. He clearly sets forth His ideal and what would be best for us, and then He gradually makes allowances for our faults and failures so that we can move forward in life, making the best of the situations in which we find ourselves.

For our part as His children, we should not take advantage of God’s love and grace, but diligently strive to obey God’s highest standards. “The easy way out” is almost never God’s way. Divorce may seem easy, and people may think that if they just end a difficult marriage then life will be much better, but many times things do not work out that way. Although to someone in a troubled marriage it may seem that anyone would be better than the current spouse, statistics show that the divorce rate for second marriages is even higher than the divorce rate in first marriages. This is conclusive evidence that our first spouse may not be as big a problem as we thought. The old cartoon character, Pogo, may well be correct: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

In conclusion, does God want couples to divorce? No, He does not. As we saw in Malachi, He said He hates divorce. But does God allow for divorce due to hardheartedness, or to protect a spouse or child? Yes, He does. Nevertheless, a lot of divorces could be prevented if couples were more willing to put time and energy into having successful marriages.

Marriages have been under attack ever since the Serpent attacked Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and their fall from Paradise put immense pressure on couples and the marriage covenant. In contrast to angels, which do not marry or reproduce (Matt. 22:30), humans enter into a marriage covenant and reproduce, and it takes the best effort of both the husband and wife to build the marriage relationship and raise godly children. Satan knows that by destroying the marriage, he greatly affects both the parents and the children, so he wages a relentless war against marriage.

As warriors in the spiritual battle, Christians are to fight to protect and preserve their marriages. Husbands and wives are different because God designed them to be. Sadly, most couples have never learned how to use their differences to their advantage and complement one another. Instead, they compete against each other, are not honest with each other but hide things from one another, refuse to forgive, and in general live in a manner that is not truly self-sacrificial. MUTUAL SUBMISSION TO ONE ANOTHER MOTIVATED BY A REVERENCE FOR JESUS GOD'S ANOINTED ONE IS A PREREQUISITE FOR A SUCCESSFUL CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE (Eph. 5:21), and when there is humility, honor, and love in the marriage, besides having a wonderful relationship that is a joy, the couple will offer up powerful prayers to God (1 Peter 3:1-7).

Good marriages do not “just happen.” The spiritual battle is far too intense, and temptations and weaknesses of the flesh are far too common, for good marriages to happen without work. The chemistry we felt when we first fell in love may have seemed like it “just happened,” but NO MARRIAGE CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY MAINTAINED WITHOUT HARD WORK. We need to learn about our gender differences, build our communication skills, practice patience and selflessness, work at our teamwork, magnify each other’s good points, and forgive each other’s faults and failures. If we do that, we will find that we will not need to take advantage of God’s allowance for divorce. Let’s raise our vision of Christian marriage so it is in alignment with the glory God intended it to display!

THE HOLISTIC VIEW OF MAN

"What is man, that Thou dost take thought of him?" (Psalm 8:4). We all know that he is "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14), but exactly what IS the nature of man? Mankind has been asking this question, and seeking the answer, almost from the beginning of time.

One of the important truths conveyed in the OT Scriptures, as the nature of man is considered, is that man is a unified whole, rather than a loose fusion of separate and disparate entities. It was much later that the pagans began to influence the thinking of the people of God in the direction of two (dichotomy) or three (trichotomy) distinct parts. This dualistic manner of conceptualizing human beings has persisted throughout most of Christian history, and began in the so-called intertestamental period to influence the Jewish thinking as well.

"A human being is a totality of being, not a combination of various parts and impulses. According to the Old Testament understanding, a person is not a body which happens to possess a soul. Instead, a person is a living soul. ... Because of God's breath of life, the man became 'a living being' (Gen. 2:7). A person, thus, is a complete totality, made up of human flesh, spirit (best understood as 'the life-force'), and nephesh (best understood as 'the total self' but often translated as 'soul')" (Holman Bible Dictionary, p. 61). "The Old Testament truth that people exist as a totality remained firm in New Testament writings" (ibid). "The New Testament illustrates four specific and distinct dimensions of human existence, but the writers of the New Testament affirm with the Old Testament writers that a human being is a totality, a complete whole" (ibid).

"In the Bible, a person is a unity. Body and soul or spirit are not opposite terms, but rather terms which supplement one another to describe aspects of the inseparable whole person. Such a holistic image of a person is maintained also in the New Testament even over against the Greek culture which, since Plato, sharply separated body and soul with an analytic exactness and which saw the soul as the valuable, immortal, undying part of human beings. ... According to the Bible, a human being exists as a whole unit and remains also as a whole person in the hand of God after death. A person is not at any time viewed as a bodyless soul" (ibid, p. 1295-1296).

Dr. Everett Ferguson, a dear brother in Christ, in his book Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries (ACU Press), comments on some statements found in the noted second century work The Epistle to Diognetus (in which are found the statements: "The invisible soul is imprisoned in a visible body" and "The immortal soul dwells in a mortal tent"). Dr. Ferguson observes: "From the standpoint of the Biblical doctrine of man, one can fault the author for his Greek distinction between body and soul. The sharp separation he makes is more in accord with Greek philosophy than it is with the Biblical view of the unity of the whole man" (p. 198). Everett later comments, "The author's anthropology is faulty" (ibid).

"The ancient Hebrews did not approach man dualistically as have the Greeks nor, by implication, the general public of contemporary Western society" (Dr. Arnold De Graaff and Dr. James Olthuis, Toward A Biblical View Of Man, a paper produced for the Institute For Christian Studies, p. 81). "Man is not a soul imprisoned in a body. Both belong together in a psychosomatic unity. ... There is not dualism in the sense of separation, as though there could be full man either as body alone or as soul alone. ...together they make up the one man" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 134).

"The English translation ... 'soul' has too often been misunderstood as teaching a bipartite (soul and body: dichotomy) or tripartite (body, soul and spirit: trichotomy) anthropology. Equally misleading is the interpretation which too radically separates soul from body as in the Greek view of human nature. Porteous states it well when he says, 'The Hebrew could not conceive of a disembodied soul.' ... As R.B. Laurin has suggested, 'To the Hebrew, man was not a body and a soul, but rather a body-soul, a unity of vital power'" (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5, p. 496). "What is essential to understanding the Hebrew mind is the recognition that man is a unit: body-soul" (ibid, p. 497).

It is important to note the growing number of scholars who have perceived the doctrine of dualism to be anti-biblical and totally opposed to the true holistic nature of man. This realization is especially vital to our theology, for "what Christians believe about the make-up of their human nature largely determines what they believe about their ultimate destiny" (Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? -- A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, p. 21). "A survey of the studies produced during the last fifty years or so, reveals that the traditional dualistic view of human nature has come under massive attack. Scholars seem to outdo one another in challenging traditional dualism and in affirming Biblical wholism. ... Christianity is coming out of a stupor and is suddenly discovering that for too long it has held to a view of human nature derived from Platonic dualism rather than from Biblical wholism" (ibid).

Thus, as we examine the "parts" of man (body, soul, spirit) we need to keep in mind that these are NOT separate living entities that perhaps can survive apart from one another, and even prosper. Rather, they are integral aspects of the whole man and do not rise to higher, fuller life when freed from one another. Such a concept is pure paganism, and it has no basis in the Scriptures and certainly has no place in the teachings of Christianity.

The biblical view of the nature of man is probably best perceived in Genesis 2:7 -- "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." One could perhaps present this passage as an equation:

B + B = B
Body + Breath = Being

Let's notice each of these three concepts more closely, especially since some traditionalists see in this verse justification for the doctrine of "immortal soulism."

THE BODY

"Of the thirteen words which refer to the animal or human body, the most frequent is basar, 'flesh.' It can designate the body as a whole, but the form or shape of the body or of its parts is not what is important. The focus is on the function or dynamics" (Holman Bible Dictionary, p. 202). The Greek word most often utilized for the body is "soma."

The body of man was formed from the physical elements that also make up the earth about us. According to one source on the Internet, "A chemical analysis of man's body reveals that it consists of 72 parts oxygen, 13.5 parts carbon, 9.1 parts hydrogen, 2.5 parts nitrogen, 1.3 parts calcium, 1.15 parts phosphorus, and small amounts of potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, magnesium, iron, silicon, iodine, and fluorine. The first six elements listed in this paragraph, therefore, make up more than 99% of man's body."

Although one might want to verify these figures with those better equipped to know than I, nevertheless the point is made that our human bodies consist of common elements found in the physical creation. Phrased more poetically: we are formed from the dust of the ground. In Genesis 3:19 man was informed, "You are dust, and to dust you shall return." Abraham, as he ventured to speak to the Lord, acknowledged, "I am but dust and ashes" (Genesis 18:27). "For He Himself knows our frame (what we are made of); He is mindful that we are but dust" (Psalm 103:14).

Solomon, in speaking of both men and animals, declares, "All came from the dust and all return to the dust" (Eccl. 3:20). He later observes, "Then the dust will return to the earth as it was" (Eccl. 12:7). In Psalm 104, which speaks of the animals, we are informed that the Creator "dost take away their spirit, they expire, and return to their dust" (vs. 29). With regard to the physical composition of man and beast, it is the same. Neither has an advantage over the other in this area (Eccl. 3:19-21). If God should decide to withhold breath/spirit from both, "all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust" (Job 34:15).

"The wordplay between 'adam' and 'adama' (ground, soil) in Gen. 2:7 suggests the relatedness between humanity and the created world" (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p. 615). "There is a wordplay in the Hebrew text of Genesis 2-3 that indicates an intimate relationship between man (adham) and the ground (adhamah). God formed man of dust from the ground (Gen. 2:7; 3:23), made him to till the ground (2:5; 3:23; cf. 2:15), cursed the ground because he sinned (3:17), and decreed that he should return to the ground from whence he came (3:19). The emphasis throughout Genesis 2-3 seems to be on the frailty and transitoriness of all God's creation, whether vegetable, animal, or man" (John T. Willis, The Living Word Commentary: Genesis, p. 102-103). "Our study of the meaning and use of 'flesh--bashar' in the Old Testament shows that the word generally is used to describe the concrete reality of human existence from the perspective of its frailty and feebleness" (Dr. Samuel Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? -- A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, p. 62).

I imagine there would be little debate between most traditionalists and me over the physical body of man (and by "man" I refer to both male and female -- Gen. 1:27). Our bodies are mortal, and thus subject to death. At some point, unless we are privileged to be alive at the Parousia, we shall die (Heb. 9:27). Thus, our bodies will return to the ground ... dust returning to dust.

The promise of our Lord, however, is that He will awaken us from our "sleep in the dust of the ground" (Daniel 12:2) and we shall be changed, this mortal shall put on immortality (1 Cor. 15:50f), and we shall thus be enabled to forever dwell in the presence of our Lord. The hope of the child of God, therefore, is inextricably linked with the resurrection of the body from the dust of the ground. Without resurrection, either Christ's or our own, we have perished (1 Cor. 15:12-18).

THE SPIRIT

Obviously the physical body is not inherently immortal. Indeed, after the fall, man was barred from the garden and the tree of life (Gen. 3:24) lest he "take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (Gen. 3:22). Thus, the body itself is destined to die (suffer the loss of life; return to the ground). For some (the redeemed) the hope exists of one day awaking and putting on "everlasting life" (Daniel 12:2), but that is yet future. At the present time there is nothing inherently immortal about our physical bodies.

Thus, the traditionalists (those who believe in man's inherent immortality) must search elsewhere for that special "immortal something" that they believe is part of man's makeup. Some assume it is the "spirit" of man that is immortal. Genesis 2:7 declares, "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the BREATH of life; and man became a living being." It is this "breath of life," this "spirit of life," that is proclaimed by some to be immortal, and which consciously survives the death of the physical body.

"In the Hebrew there are two words for breath -- neshamah, and more commonly ruach. In general, they are used interchangeably for 'breath' and 'spirit'" (Leroy Edwin Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers: The Conflict of the Ages Over the Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol. 1, p. 36). The Greek word employed is "pneuma."

"In the OT Hebrew 'ruah' means first of all wind and breath, but also the human spirit in the sense of life force and even personal energy. ... It is explicit that God is the source of human breath. ... In the NT Greek 'pneuma' can mean wind. It can also have the meaning breath. ... Both 'spirit' and 'mind' are used of the whole person and not simply of component parts" (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p. 1248).

The body of man is animated and sustains life as long as the "breath" dwells within it. In other words, a breathing body is a living body; a body where the breathing has ceased for an extended period is a dead body. God animated the physical body by placing within it the "breath of life." Life is a gift of the Life-Giver. He can also withdraw it. Psalm 104:29, speaking of animals, declares, "Thou dost take away their spirit/breath, they expire, and return to their dust." When the breath departs from the body, the body returns to the dust. Solomon points out that men and beasts "all have the same breath/spirit" (Eccl. 3:19).

This is an interesting fact, and a troubling one, for those who would suggest the "immortal part of man" is the "spirit." Animals have the same spirit!! Thus, if this is the immortal part of man, why not also of the other living creatures? The simple fact of the matter is, when the breath is withdrawn, men and animals die. God is the Giver of this gift of the breath of life, and thus this life-force returns to Him who gave it. "The dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit/breath will return to God who gave it" (Eccl. 12:7). This passage does not suggest some "immortal spirit" (which is the real us) flies off to heaven to dwell with God. It merely declares the life-force has departed the body (thus rendering it a dead body). Since God is the Giver of this life-force, it is depicted as returning to Him who bestowed it.

Notice Ezekiel 37 (the vision of the valley of dry bones). The prophet was asked, "Can these bones live?" (vs. 3). Ezekiel didn't really commit himself, so the Lord said of the bones, "Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. And I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin, and put breath in you that you may come alive" (vs. 5-6). The prophet watched as the bodies were recreated and reformed. "But there was no breath in them" (vs. 8). Then he was told to prophesy, "Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they come to life" (vs. 9). He did so, and "breath came into them, and they came to life, and stood on their feet" (vs. 10). This is almost reminiscent of Gen. 2:7, isn't it? God formed man, and breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living being! The breath is the life-force of the body. Without it the body is dead. And this gift of the breath of life comes from God. "In Him we live and move and exist (have our being)" (Acts 17:28). "He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things" (Acts 17:25).

It should also be pointed out that "spirit" is not infrequently used in Scripture to represent the less physical aspects of man's being --- personality, emotions, attitude, and the like. Thus, one might be "mean-spirited" or have a broken or contrite spirit (Psalm 51). These terms do not suggest an immortal being trapped inside the body, but merely reflect the mental and emotional aspects of man's nature. "In both the Old and New Testaments, spirit is used of humans and of other beings. When used of humans, spirit is associated with a wide range of functions including thinking and understanding, emotions, attitudes, and intentions. ... Spirit is used extensively with human emotions. ... A variety of attitudes and intentions are associated with spirit" (Holman Bible Dictionary, p. 1300).

Some suggest that Psalm 31:5 ("Into Thy hand I commit my spirit"), which was voiced by Christ on the cross, proves that the "spirit/breath" is the immortal something which survives death, and is that immortal, conscious, personal part of us that lives on with God. However, the "spirit" of both men (good and wicked) and animals is withdrawn unto God. This seems to preclude such dualistic notions (unless you want heaven infested with the "immortal spirits" of rodents!!). All that is suggested by this expression is that the one expiring is entrusting back to God the gift of the breath of life. The confident hope and expectation of such a statement, of course, is that He will raise us back up and bestow the gift of life once again. Paul, as he contemplated his impending death, wrote confidently: "I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until/for that day" (2 Tim. 1:12). I think Paul also knew that his breath of life was in good hands, and would one day be bestowed again when his body was raised from the dust of the ground and reconstituted!

"There is no indication in the Bible that the spirit of life given to man at creation was a conscious entity before it was given. This gives us reason to believe that the spirit of life has no conscious personality when it returns to God. The spirit that returns to God is simply the animating life principle imparted by God to both human beings and animals for the duration of their earthly existence" (Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? -- A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, p. 74). "Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. His breath/spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish" (Psalm 146:3-4).

THE SOUL

Well, if it isn't the spirit/breath which is that "immortal something" within us that survives the death of the body, these traditionalists theorize, then it must be the "soul." This is the one that most traditionalists choose as being the immortal part of man. In fact, the expression "immortal soul" has become very common in Christendom. The readers might be surprised to discover, however, that the phrase "immortal soul" NEVER appears in the Bible ... not even once!!

"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living SOUL/being" (Genesis 2:7). Some traditionalists virtually equate this last phrase ("living soul") with "immortal soul." But, that is NOT what the passage says. God put breath within this body and the body became a living being. The exact same words are used of animals in Scripture. Further, the text doesn't say man was GIVEN a soul --- it says man BECAME a soul. Big difference!!

A fellow minister once told me: "The one thing which distinguishes man from monkey is his 'living soul.' To my knowledge this expression is used ONLY of man; I don't find it used of bugs or bulls." Thus, according to this minister, that which makes man unique among the living creation of God is: man has a "living soul," and those other life forms DO NOT. Again, we see this phrase "living soul" incorrectly being equated with "IMMORTAL soul."

It would probably shock a great many to know that the phrase "living soul" is actually used more often in Genesis with reference to animals than with reference to man!! Notice some of these other passages where "living soul" IS used of bugs, bulls, birds and beasts.

• GENESIS 1:20 --- "Then God said, 'Let the waters teem with swarms of LIVING SOULS, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens. '"
• GENESIS 1:21 --- "And God created the great sea monsters, and every LIVING SOUL that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good."
• GENESIS 1:24 --- "Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth LIVING SOULS after their kind: cattle and creeping things (here are the "bugs and bulls") and beasts of the earth after their kind;' and it was so."
• GENESIS 2:19 --- "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each LIVING SOUL, that was its name."
• GENESIS 9:15-16 --- "...and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every LIVING SOUL of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every LIVING SOUL of all flesh that is on the earth."

Lest you think "poor demented, deluded Al" has REALLY lost it here, let me quote from an article by a well-known and respected scholar in the Churches of Christ: Dr. Jack P. Lewis (who was formerly a professor at Harding Graduate School of Religion). In an article entitled "Living Soul," which appeared in the March 16, 1976 issue of Firm Foundation, he began by quoting Gen. 2:7. Then, he wrote the following (I am only quoting a small portion of that article):

• "It is in particular the line of reasoning premised upon this verse which argues that man has a living soul and that animals do not have souls that I wish us to look. For many people this verse in Genesis describes the one distinctive thing that makes man different from animals.
• "The phrase at issue in this passage is NEPHESH HAYYAH which occurs in several Old Testament passages and is translated into Greek as PSUCHE ZOSA.
• "That which has been obscured to us because of variety in our English translation is that the creatures are also NEPHESH HAYYAH. Only in one out of the several passages where NEPHESH HAYYAH occurs is man the exclusive object of discussion.
• "It would seem that arguments which try to present the distinctiveness of man from the term 'living soul' are actually based on the phenomena of variety in translation of the KJV and have no validity in fact. Had the translators rendered all these occurrences by the same term, we would have been aware of the fact that both men and animals are described by it."

As Dr. Lewis has pointed out, many of the translations (perhaps following the lead of the KJV and its self-proclaimed desire to provide "variety" in translation) have rendered this term "living CREATURE" when it is used of animals, but "living SOUL" when speaking of man. Yet the term is exactly the same for both in the original!!

The word itself simply conveys the concept of "BEING," or "LIFE." When God took this body He had created from the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life, that body then BECAME a living, breathing BEING. This is said of both man and animal.And that is ALL the original text says!!! Nothing is ever said in these passages about either man or beast (or bug or bird) being anything other than "living BEINGS."

"Soul" is not what a living, animate physical body HAS, rather "soul" is what a living, animate physical body IS. They cannot be separated. "Body and soul cannot be observed separate from one another. Body and soul do not form two separate substances. Instead, they comprise the one individual human in inseparable union. ... Also in the New Testament body and soul are two inseparable aspects of the one human being -- Matthew 6:25" (Holman Bible Dictionary, p. 202).

"The Hebrew word nephesh is a key Old Testament term (755 times) referring to human beings. ... A person does not have a soul. A person is a living soul (Gen. 2:7). That means a living being that owes life itself to the Creator just as the animal does (Gen. 2:19). ... The soul does not represent a divine, immortal, undying part of the human being after death as the Greeks often thought" (ibid, p. 1295).

A brother in Christ, John T. Willis, in his commentary on Genesis (Sweet Publishing Company), writes, "The Hebrew expression nephesh chayyah, which some insist on translating 'a living soul,' is used of fish and marine life in Genesis 1:20,21; land animals in 1:24; beasts, birds and reptiles in 1:30; and beasts and birds in 2:19. If 'soul' means the eternal part of man ... in Genesis 2:7, it must mean the eternal part of a fish ... in Genesis 1:20, 21; etc." (p. 103-104). "The word translated 'being' in the RSV (nephesh) means the whole person" (ibid, p. 104).

"While man became a living soul, he did not thereby automatically become an immortal soul, or being. The same Hebrew term, 'living soul,' is applied to the lower animals. In fact, nephesh (soul) is four times applied to the lower animals before it is used of man -- in Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, 30. And out of the first thirteen usages in Genesis, nephesh is nine times used of the lower animals. ... Man BECAME a living soul -- a single entity, an inseparable unit, a unique individual. ... The soul is the living person or being himself, not a separate, independent 'something'" (Leroy Edwin Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers: The Conflict of the Ages Over the Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol. 1, p. 34-35, 39).

"Far from referring simply to one aspect of a person, 'soul' refers to the whole person" (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p. 1245). This word, like "spirit," can also be used figuratively to refer to the seat of emotions in place of personal pronouns, or to refer to one's entire self/being. It also can refer to life itself. When Jesus spoke of the destruction of both "soul and body" in Gehenna, He was referring to the fact that only God has the power to destroy not only the body, but also the very BEING of a person. Men can only kill the body, but God can always raise it right back up. Only God can so destroy a person's BEING that nothing exists!! Thus, "soul" conveys the idea of not just a physical body, but the very BEINGNESS of the person!! MAN can end another man's "being" temporarily; GOD can end a man's "being" forever!!!

The "soul" is even said to reside in the blood!! "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11). In Gen. 9:4 we are told the "soul" IS the blood. This simply means the LIFE of the body. It in no way speaks of some "immortal something" actually living in the blood, or being the blood. Just as life is connected to breath/breathing, so also is life connected to the coursing of blood through one's veins. Without either the body is dead (a dead soul, not a living soul).

"The word translated 'soul' contains no idea of a spiritual existence. ... Really the word refers to the natural life of animals and men, maintained by breathing, or in some way extracting oxygen from the atmospheric air" (Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. 1, p. 19). Brother T. Pierce Brown, in an article entitled "Soul and Spirit" (Gospel Advocate, June 14, 1979), wrote, "A consideration of EVERY (emphasis his) passage in which these terms are used leads us to the conclusion that the term 'soul' is a term that was applied in the Bible to every being that normally has sensory capacities (life), whether or not they have that capacity when the term is applied to them. For example, one might see a body of a dead person and say, 'That poor soul is dead.' The Bible uses the term that way, even as we do, and it has nothing at all to do with the immortality or mortality of the soul. It simply means that the PERSON (the one who HAD life -- soul -- sensory capacity) is dead."

"A doctrine of the immortality of the soul is not stated in the Bible and is not clearly defined in early rabbinical literature" (Encyclopedia of Jewish Religion). "Summing up, we can say that the expression 'man became a living soul -- nephesh hayyah' does not mean that at creation his body was endowed with an immortal soul, a separate entity, distinct from the body. Rather, it means that as a result of the divine inbreathing of the 'breath of life' into the lifeless body, man became a living, breathing being, no more, no less. The heart began to beat, the blood to circulate, the brain to think, and all the vital signs of life were activated. Simply stated, 'a living soul' means 'a living being'" (Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? -- A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, p. 46).

Although the Bible does not teach this doctrine, in 1513 A.D. at the Fifth Lateran Ecumenical Council, the Pope issued a decree (aimed primarily at Luther and his associates) that condemned "all who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal." It was declared that the soul was immortal, and "we declare every assertion contrary to the truth of illumined faith to be altogether false; and, that it may not be permitted to dogmatize otherwise, we strictly forbid it, and we decree that all who adhere to affirmations of this kind of error are to be shunned and punished as detestable and abominable heretics and infidels who disseminate everywhere most damnable heresies and who weaken the Catholic faith."

Brother Curtis Dickinson, a longtime acquaintance, wrote, "The Pope's decree turned many from hope in a resurrection to belief in an immortal soul" (The Witness, Vol. 35, No. 11, November, 1995). Needless to say, this decree brought forth strong opposition from those who sought to teach the truth of the Scriptures. Luther declared it was the Pope, not the Bible, who taught, "the soul is immortal." In his Table Talk Luther declared -- "Now if one should say that Abraham's soul lives with God but his body is dead, this distinction is rubbish. I will attack it. That would be a silly soul if it were in heaven and desired its body!!" William Tyndale (1484-1536), an English Bible translator and martyr, wrote, "And ye, in putting them (the departed souls) in heaven, hell and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection." Tyndale argued that if souls were already in either bliss or misery, "then what cause is there of the resurrection?" And what cause is there even of judgment? In another part of this same writing, Tyndale said -- "The true faith putteth forth the resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour. The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put that the soul did ever live. And the Pope joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ and the fleshly doctrine of philosophers together; things so contrary that they cannot agree. And because the fleshly-minded Pope consenteth unto heathen doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the Scripture to stablish it. If the soul be in heaven, tell me what cause is there for the resurrection?"

Yes, the doctrine of "immortal soulism" is a pernicious doctrine of demons, and it undermines some of the basic core doctrines of Christianity. It had its seed in the lie of Satan in the garden and has been perpetuated by pagans and the Catholic hierarchy. Sadly, many even in the Lord's church continue to preach it from the pulpits to precious unsuspecting souls.

In summation, the nature of man is: Body + Breath = Being!! Man is a unified whole, not a conglomeration of distinct, disparate entities. Man IS a living being; man does not POSSESS a living being! Man is entirely mortal in nature; no part of him is inherently immortal, although through God's grace man has the potential and the promise of a conferred immortality in Christ Jesus at the resurrection. The Lord "alone possesses immortality" (1 Tim. 6:16), but if we "seek for immortality" (Rom. 2:7) we shall "put on" immortality (1 Cor. 15:54) after our resurrection from the dust of the ground. For the redeemed of God there is this promise: "God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life" (1 John 5:11-12). Our great Savior Jesus Christ has "brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher" (2 Tim. 1:10-11). May we each be teachers and preachers of the true nature of man, and the true nature of our hope of immortality, which is in HIM ... not in ourselves.

What Does the Bible Say About Fasting?

 

Before we can accurately discuss the biblical information about fasting, we must understand that although when we speak of “fasting,” we usually mean going without food, that is not the only meaning it has in the Bible. Later in this article we will examine a second biblical meaning of “fasting,” which relates to self-humiliation, repentance, prayer, and doing good works.

There is no scriptural directive for Christians to “fast” by not eating food. In fact, God has never prescribed the practice of fasting for any of His people, either Israel or the Church. Nevertheless, some people think that God commands fasting. Furthermore, others who realize fasting is not a command of God practice it for a number of reasons such as: a tendency to want to save themselves by their works, to feel more valuable in the eyes of God, to try to gain God’s favor in a given situation, to prove to themselves that they really do love God, or to increase their self-discipline and prove they are not a slave to food. Also, there can be health benefits to fasting, although there are also reasons to be cautious about it, but that is not the focus of this article.

Through the centuries, fasting became such an important tradition in the Jewish religion that it was given the force of law. The Jews had many traditions that involved afflicting the flesh that were not commands of God, but which they kept as if they were. Many such traditions are mentioned in ancient Jewish literature but not in the Bible. Some are in the Bible, and even a cursory reading of the Gospels shows Jesus in conflict with the Jews about traditions that made people’s lives difficult, including Sabbath traditions (Matt. 12:10-12), traditions about helping parents (Matt. 15:3-6), and traditions involving cleanliness (Mark 7:1-6). Jesus also did not require his disciples to fast, something that confused the people of his time (Mark 2:18-20).

Even though fasting was a tradition, not a commandment, it was an important part of the Jewish religion and was also practiced by the early Christians, so it is mentioned many times in the Bible. For example, Zechariah mentions a public fast in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth month (Zech. 8:19); Jesus mentions fasting in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6:16-18); the Day of Atonement is called the “Fast” (Acts 27:9); and the early Christians fasted (Acts 13:1-3).

Fausset’s Bible Dictionary notes in its article on fasting (now Public Domain in Bibleworks) that fasting was not part of the Law of Moses.

The word (tsuwm) [“fast”] never occurs in the Pentateuch [Genesis – Deuteronomy]. The Mosaic Law, though directing minutely the foods to be eaten and to be shunned, never enjoins fasting. The false asceticism so common in the East was carefully avoided.

The Day of Atonement was traditionally a fast day in the Jewish religion, so it is called “the Fast” in Acts 27:9, but God never specifically commanded the Jews not to eat on that day. Fausset’s Bible Dictionary says:

On the yearly Day of Atonement, the 10th day of the 7th month, Israelites were directed to “afflict the soul” (Lev. 16:29-31; 23:27; Num. 30:13). This significant term implies that the essence of scriptural “fasting” lies in self-humiliation and penitence, and that the precise mode of subduing the flesh to the spirit, and of expressing sorrow for sin, is left to the conscientious discretion of each person.

The Day of Atonement was a day for people to “afflict your souls” (Lev. 16:29, 31 KJV), which other versions translate as “deny yourselves” (NIV), or “humble your souls” (NASB). The Hebrew word that the KJV translates “afflict” in Leviticus 16:29 and 31 means to “humble, overpower, subdue, oppress, or weaken,” depending on the context. The same Hebrew phrase occurs in the context of a woman making a vow to afflict her soul, which could be any vow she made that involved self-denial (Num. 30:13). Although over time the Day of Atonement became a day of fasting, God never specifically said people were to go without eating. Instead, people were to deny themselves, which different people would do in different ways.

Another reason people think the Bible commands not eating is that “fasting” wrongly appears in three places in widely read versions of the Bible. That is because during the centuries that monks and scribes controlled and copied the New Testament, the word “fasting” was added to some manuscripts in several places. This could have happened by accident, but the scribes may have added it on purpose, thinking it would help people in their walk with God, like the Jews who for the same purpose enforced their traditions as if they were laws. This is the position Fausset’s Bible Dictionary takes:

“Evidently the growing tendency to asceticism in post-apostolic times accounts for these interpolations [additions to the text].”

History shows us that what Fausset’s refers to as a “growing tendency to asceticism” or pious observance of regulations shows up in many ways besides fasting. Over time, many traditions that involved afflicting the flesh entered not only Judaism, as we have already seen, but also Christianity. For example, the Roman Catholic doctrine that priests not marry is a tradition that is not biblical (1 Tim. 3:2). Ditto for the regulation not to eat meat on Friday (which was done away with by the Roman Catholic Church in the late 1900s), and the tradition that many people follow when they get very dressed up to go to church on Sunday (a tradition that is less and less adhered to today).

It is important to be aware of the three verses where “fasting” was added to some of the Greek manuscripts, eventually finding their way into both Protestant and Roman Catholic Bibles, especially the earlier versions such as the King James Version, Geneva Bible, or Douay-Rheims. We will show each of them in both the KJV and a more modern version that recognizes the erroneous addition. For our modern version we will use the ESV (English Standard Version), which is the newest widely accepted essentially literal translation available today, although we would find the same thing in the vast majority of Protestant and Roman Catholic modern Bibles.

Matthew 17:21 (KJV) Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Matthew 17:21 (ESV)

Verse 21 does not even occur in the ESV, because the research done in the almost 400 years between the King James Version (1611) and the ESV (2001) to recover how the original Greek text reads shows that the whole verse in the KJV had been added by scribes to make Matthew more closely harmonize with Mark. In fact, the ESV does not even have a verse reference for verse 21, so unless a reader pays attention to the numbered verse order as he reads, he would not notice that verse 21 is not there.

Let’s continue to compare the older version with the modern one in the two verses below.

Mark 9:29 (KJV)
And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

Mark 9:29 (ESV)
And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”

1 Corinthians 7:5 (KJV)
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

1 Corinthians 7:5 (ESV)
Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

The addition of “fasting” in the above verses in widely read Bibles such as the King James Version has contributed to the idea that fasting was a command of God in certain situations.

We have seen that fasting was a man-made tradition that over time was given the force of a law. Another reason Christians fast by going without food is that we have a tendency to want to save ourselves by our works or gain the favor of God by what we do, and we think fasting gets God’s attention and demonstrates our love for Him. God does show favor to those who humble themselves before Him, as James 4:6 says: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” However, we must keep in mind that no verse of Scripture says that going without food is the kind of humility God wants from us. What God wants is what He has always wanted, that we deny ourselves in order to benefit others.

Isaiah 58 is a wonderful chapter about “fasting,” which contrasts pompous and pious fasting, which is just a show of the flesh, with the true fasting God expects from us. A careful study of the chapter shows that the people God was addressing were trying to look religious in the flesh, but were actually rebellious and sinful. God says to Isaiah, “Declare to my people their rebellion and to the house of Jacob their sins” (Isa. 58:1). The fleshly and hypocritical actions of the Israelites did not fool God, so He paid no attention to their fasting. God always looks on the heart, and does not respond to hypocritical actions, no matter how pious they look.

God’s lack of response to the people’s not eating prompted them to complain. They said, “Why have we fasted…and you have not seen it? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?” God answered them in a way that showed their fasting was just a show in the flesh: “Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers. Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife, and in striking each other with wicked fists. You cannot fast as you do today and expect your voice to be heard on high” (Isa. 58:3 and 4).

Then comes a part of Isaiah 58 that we must pay special attention to, because God speaks of the kind of “fast” that He expects from people, and how He will bless us if we do good to others from the heart instead of making a prideful show in the flesh.

Isaiah 58:6, 7, 9 and 10
(6) “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?
(7) Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
(9) …If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
(10) and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday.

Through the prophet Isaiah, God tried to bring people back to what they should have learned from the Day of Atonement, that true “fasting” is not going without food, but denying ourselves by helping and serving others. This truth is taught again in Zechariah, in whose time the people had fasted regularly, and yet had many troubles. They sent to the priests and asked about their fasting, and were given the same kind of direction Isaiah had given: fasting was not refraining from food, but extending yourself for the sake of others.

Zechariah 7:4-6, 8-10 (NASB)
(4) Then the word of the LORD of hosts came to me saying,
(5) “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months these seventy years, was it actually for Me that you fasted?
(6) ‘And when you eat and drink, do you not eat for yourselves and do you not drink for yourselves?
(8) Then the word of the LORD came to Zechariah saying,
(9) “Thus has the LORD of hosts said, ‘Dispense true justice, and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother;
(10) and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.’

These verses from Isaiah and Zechariah are the Old Testament equivalent of what Jesus spoke about when he said that anyone who wanted to follow him must deny himself (Luke 9:23), or when James said that pure and faultless religion is to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world (James 1:27). True humility is a matter of the heart, and is reflected in service to others.

In spite of the fact that fasting in the sense of going without food was not a command of God, Jewish tradition had given it such emphasis that most people considered it law. That is why in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, “When you fast….” He was not commanding fasting, but acknowledging the common practice of the day. However, we can tell from what Jesus said that the religious leaders of his time were no different from those of Isaiah’s or Zechariah’s time; they were fasting to openly flaunt how spiritual they were and how much they loved God. In contrast, Jesus taught us that if we are going to fast, it is a private matter between God and us, and should not be made public.

Matthew 6:16-18
(16) “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
(17) But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face,
(18) so that it will not be obvious to men 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.

If going without food were necessary for our spiritual life, God or Jesus would have said so, but they did not. We do not have to go without food to obey God, but He does want us to “fast” by denying ourselves, like the Law, Prophets, and New Testament teach. If we go without food to try to get close to God while ignoring what He told us to do to get close to Him, we become like the Pharisees who rejected His commands and replaced them with their traditions (Matt. 15:1-3; Mark 7:5-9).

As long as we are “fasting” the way God has told us, by denying ourselves for the sake of others, it is fine to also go without food for some of the reasons we mentioned earlier: as an outward demonstration of the inward humble posture of our heart, to become clear-headed and focused on prayer or another spiritual goal, to attempt to gain God’s favor in a given situation, or to increase our self-discipline and prove we are not slaves to food. There is nothing wrong with any of these reasons for fasting, which through the centuries has been helpful for many people in their spiritual journey.

To put the practice of going without food in perspective, however, it will help if we realize that the Middle Eastern people had a number of customs besides fasting by which they demonstrated the humble or distressed posture of their heart, and that they were in need. One was to tear their clothes (Gen. 37:29, 34; 44:13; Num. 14:6; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35; 1 Kings 21:27; Isa. 37:1). Another was to wear clothing made of “sackcloth,” a very rough and uncomfortable fabric that would be similar to our wearing clothing made out of burlap (Gen. 37:34; 1 Kings 21:27; 2 Kings 6:30; Esther 4:1; Isa. 37:1; Lam. 2:10). Another way was to sit in ashes or put ashes on themselves (2 Sam. 13:19; Esther 4:1, 3; Job 2:8; 42:6; Isa. 58:5; Dan. 9:3). Still another way was to put dust on their heads (Josh. 7:6; Job 2:12; Lam. 2:10; Ezek. 27:30; Rev. 18:19). God did not command any of these outward shows of humility and need, and none of these practices are essential for getting His attention, but neither are they forbidden. Anything we do to genuinely humble ourselves before God, subdue the power that our bodies and sin nature have over us, and increase our love for God and mankind, is fine with Him. Nevertheless, we should be sure that we “fast” the way God wants us to first, and only then fast or show our humility in other ways.

It we do choose to fast by going without food, it is important that we never consider it as a form of self-punishment for our sins. Jesus took on our punishment, and the chastisement of our peace was upon him. If God wanted us to punish ourselves for our sin, He would have made that perfectly clear. We all sin, and God has told us what to do in those cases: confess it and ask forgiveness (1 John 1:9). The Bible has examples of people fasting after they have sinned, but there is no reason to think they did so as a punishment, but rather to have time to focus on repentance and their walk with God (1 Sam. 7:6).

We live in a very self-centered culture, and our sin nature is relentlessly selfish. One way many people have become less self-centered and more Christ-centered, helped themselves focus on a petition before God, or helped themselves break the control that their fleshly desires had over them, was to fast. Many great men and women of the Bible fasted when they needed God’s help (2 Sam. 12:16; 2 Chron. 20:3; Ezra 8:21-23; Neh. 1:4; Esth. 4:16), and Jesus himself fasted in the desert for 40 days (Matt. 4:2). In each of these cases, fasting was something that the individual felt was important for his spiritual life and successful walk with God, and we must realize that as it helped them, it may possibly help us.

There are several common ways people practice fasting. One way is to go entirely without food. Another way is to fast from something that seems to have a control over us. For example, a person who craves chocolate may “fast” by giving it up for a period of time. We can even “fast” from non-food things that seem to have too much influence on us, such as watching TV, listening to a certain type of music, or sleeping late. These can be very effective ways to deny ourselves. There are many things we can give up for a while to help us focus on a petition before God, gain confidence that a request will be answered, or even just give us confidence that our flesh does not control our life.

What we learn by studying fasting in the Word of God flows in perfect harmony with what we know about God. No pious outward show we make in our flesh impresses God, for He looks on our heart. It is God’s desire that each of us learn to deny ourselves and serve others. In our efforts to live a life of service, it may be helpful to fast. If we do choose to do so, we must do it like Jesus taught us: as a private matter between God and us, and not as a display to others. Our goal is to be pleasing to God and helpful to others, which requires denying ourselves, which is the same instruction God gave us on the Day of Atonement.