My Challenge To All Non-Lds Readers

[zerinus]

There's nothing wrong with the idea. What's wrong is claiming it is a commandment from God, if it isn't, and then confusedly not treating it consistently as a divine commandment.

The New Testament never commands Christians to fast, let alone to fast at a specific time. Imposing a fast as a divine commandment is a reversion to a mode of religion that was superseded by the new covenant in Christ.

First of all, Jesus did not completely abrogate the Old Testament. Only certain laws of Moses were abrogated (and others made stricter, like the law against adultery). There is nothing that suggests that Jesus abrogated everything in the Old Testament. Jesus Himself said as much (Matthew 5:17). Indeed, prophetic utterances in the OT are applied to the NT period. And fasting is declared a commandment in both the Old and New Testaments:

Joel 1:

14 Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God, and cry unto the Lord,

Joel 2:

12 Therefore also now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning

15 Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly

Matthew 6:

16 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.

17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face

18 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.

Matthew 17:

21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Mark 9:

29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

1 Corinthians 7:

5 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.

Not sure what kind of Bible you are reading, but the one I am reading tells a different story.

Edited December 8, 2011 by zerinus

[bluebell]

bluebell,

You asked:

No. I think I've been clear on this point. What I say is not a commandment is that everyone is to fast on a particular day (even specifying how many meals are to be skipped) and that the money saved from the fast is to be given to a specific charity.

So, it's a commandment to give to the poor but God has given no commandments on how often it should be given? You don't have a problem with the commandment, so much as its execution in the LDS church, am i understanding you correctly?

Though i disagree with it obviously, that at least makes sense.

Is proclaiming that such a commandment exists a sin in your belief?

[Rob Bowman]

Bluebell,

You asked:

So, it's a commandment to give to the poor but God has given no commandments on how often it should be given? You don't have a problem with the commandment, so much as its execution in the LDS church, am i understanding you correctly?

Though i disagree with it obviously, that at least makes sense.

Is proclaiming that such a commandment exists a sin in your belief?

My answer is yes to all of your questions. With regard to the last question, it is a sin for religious leaders to assert that God has commanded something when he has not.

[bluebell]

Bluebell,

With regard to the last question, it is a sin for religious leaders to assert that God has commanded something when he has not.

Even when they sincerely and truly believe that He has commanded it?

[zerinus]

My answer is yes to all of your questions. With regard to the last question, it is a sin for religious leaders to assert that God has commanded something when he has not.

It is a greater sin to reject the prophets and Apostles of the Lord: "O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" (Matthew 16:3)

[mfbukowski]

My answer is yes to all of your questions. With regard to the last question, it is a sin for religious leaders to assert that God has commanded something when he has not.

Oh no. Not the usual again.

How do you know he has not?

Because that is how you interpret the Bible?

And you know the Bible as you interpret it is true, because that is how you interpret the Bible, right?

[Bernard Gui]

You've got me totally wrong. I have absolutely no objection to the idea of skipping a meal and giving the money to charity. You make an excellent point about the many charities that recommend people do this. But that's not the issue I raised. Rather, the issue I raised was requiring all (healthy adult) members of one's religion to do it, supposedly as a commandment of God.

Let's stick to the facts.

In your first post and several subsequent posts, your issue was clearly an accusation that Mormons

are in the group of hypocrites condemned by Jesus for the way they made a show of fasting. You also

had issue with my "boasting" about it to gain favor with men.

If your objection is that organized fasting and giving donations for the relief of the poor are not commanded in the New Testament, you have no truck on this forum. This is an LDS forum, and we observe the law of the fast as described by our leaders: abstain from 2 meals, attend fast and testimony meeting, and give the equivalent value of the meals (or more if you are able) to assist the poor. If your

church doesn't do that, but has other ways to help the poor, God bless you. The concern here should be getting help to where the help is needed, not nitpicking at the way it is done.

As pointed out many times, this is not the only way LDS give service to the needy. It is one way, and of course, probably the most effective and significant. It's so odd that it gives you heartburn.

As an LDS bishop, I offer you the opportunity to question me in good faith about this practice and the bishop's relationship to it. I hope you take that invitation and make something worth your time out of it. Here's a chance to learn of our practice from the source.

Bernard

[Libs]

Does the Bishop decide where the money goes? I really had no idea where the money went, when I was active in the church. I just trusted that it found it's way to someone who needed it.. I never even thought to ask about it..

Edited December 9, 2011 by Libs

[Bernard Gui]

Does the Bishop decide where the money goes? I really had no idea where the money went, when I was active in the church. I just trusted that it found it's way to someone who needed it.. I never even thought to ask about it..

Yes, the bishop controls the fast offering funds within his ward. He works with the Relief Society

president who may visit the home to help determine needs. Where possible, commodities are provided and the family or individual uses their funds to pay bills. People are also encouraged to contact family members for assistance. The bishop also meets with the recipient to determine the best way to proceed. For example, after meeting with an unemployed father, I learned that he could not get a job as a cabbie (his profession) because he could not pass the vision test for his license. We were able to get him eyeglasses so he could get back to work, and helped with his food and other needs. The bishop can write an order for food and household items from the bishops' storehouse and Deseret Industries. If needs exceed the ward's resources, the bishop consults with the stake president.

Bernard

[mfbukowski]

As an LDS bishop....

My heartfelt condolences.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

First of all, Jesus did not completely abrogate the Old Testament. Only certain laws of Moses were abrogated (and others made stricter, like the law against adultery). There is nothing that suggests that Jesus abrogated everything in the Old Testament. Jesus Himself said as much (Matthew 5:17).

I agree. That means we need to study the NT carefully to see what sorts of things in the Torah were superseded in the new covenant and what sorts of things were not. When we do this, we find that all of the ritual or external religious observances (circumcision, sacrifices, festivals, etc.) and all of the dietary restrictions of the Torah were made obsolete or non-binding by the coming of Christ (Mark 7; Acts 10-11, 15; Romans 14; Galatians 5-6; Colossians 2; Hebrews 8-10; etc.). Although these texts do not specifically mention fasting, it would appear that fasting has some relation to both of these categories of Torah observance and may therefore be regarded as non-binding.

You wrote:

And fasting is declared a commandment in both the Old and New Testaments.

None of the NT texts that you cited does so.

When Jesus said, "when you fast" (Matt. 6:16-17), he was not commanding fasting but speaking about a religious activity that his disciples were accustomed to doing at that time under the old covenant. We know that he was not commanding them to observe the Jewish fasts because later Matthew reports (as do Mark and Luke) that disciples of John the Baptist noticed that Jesus' disciples were not fasting when they and the Pharisees fasted--and Jesus defended his disciples' lack of participation (Matt. 9:14-15; Mark 2:18-20; Luke 5:33-35). In this context, Jesus makes an interesting comment. He says that a time was coming when the "bridegroom" would be taken from them, and at that time the disciples would fast. He is referring here to the time when Jesus was going to die and his disciples would be mourning his loss. That time is over, of course; Jesus is alive, and he is with his disciples through the Holy Spirit (Matt. 18:20; 28:19-20).

Even if we were to assume that Jesus' words "when you fast" implied an expectation that they would indeed fast, these words appear in the same Gospel in which Jesus tells the same disciples that they are to do whatever the scribes and Pharisees require of them from their office "in the chair of Moses" (Matt. 23:2-3). Clearly, Jesus doesn't mean that we are obliged to follow what the modern-day equivalent of the scribes and Pharisees (Jewish Talmudic scholars and rabbis) teach. We are in a different covenantal context now--whether we are Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians.

The other texts you cited, interestingly enough, all have textual difficulties. The words "and fasting" are omitted from some manuscripts in Mark 9:29, but included in so many of them that one might plausibly argue for retaining them there. However, most modern versions omit them because the manuscript evidence is best explained by the view that the words were added early in the Gospel's manuscript history (since no reasonable explanation has been given for why copyists would have left them out). In the parallel passage in Matthew 17:21, the whole verse has been added in mostly later manuscripts, and the manuscript evidence strongly indicates the verse should be omitted there. (It was quite evidently added because the statement was found in the parallel passage in Mark.) That is why it is omitted in several versions (ESV, NET, NIV, NRSV) and put in brackets or italics in other versions (HCSB, NASB). In 1 Corinthians 7:5, the manuscript evidence strongly supports the view that the words "fasting and" were added later, not part of Paul's epistle; they are for that reason omitted in most modern versions (HCSB, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, NRSV, etc.).

Let's look at these texts on the assumption that they do refer to fasting. In Mark 9:29 (and Matthew 17:21), Jesus is not commanding a regular fast. He is speaking of an extraordinary situation in which an individual may be led by God to pray and fast for that specific situation. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 7:5 there is no command to fast. The command is that the husband and wife should not withhold themselves sexually from each other except for periods when they choose together to spend time in fasting and prayer. In this context it is even possible to understand "fasting" to mean fasting from sexual relations rather than from food. In any case, there's no regulated, commanded fast. In fact, there is no such thing in the NT at all. Even if one wanted to maintain that one or more of these verses supported the idea that Christians should fast, none of them teaches that there is a specific fast that all Christians should observe.

As a Mormon, you are of course required to accept your leaders' teaching that God has commanded the monthly fast. I, on the other hand, am not. Either way, there is no basis for such a command in the New Testament.

[Libs]

Yes, the bishop controls the fast offering funds within his ward. He works with the Relief Society

president who may visit the home to help determine needs. Where possible, commodities are provided and the family or individual uses their funds to pay bills. People are also encouraged to contact family members for assistance. The bishop also meets with the recipient to determine the best way to proceed. For example, after meeting with an unemployed father, I learned that he could not get a job as a cabbie (his profession) because he could not pass the vision test for his license. We were able to get him eyeglasses so he could get back to work, and helped with his food and other needs. The bishop can write an order for food and household items from the bishops' storehouse and Deseret Industries. If needs exceed the ward's resources, the bishop consults with the stake president.

Bernard

Ah, thank you for that explanation. I didn't realize the funds were kept so local. That's really a good thing.

Very neat about the glasses for the cabbie and all. That's wonderful.

Edit: I am trying to figure out where to put my fast money. I do attend a church, but as someone mentioned, weekly donations mostly goes for upkeep of that church. We usually donate food to the poor during the holidays and such and I always do that. But, for a regular monthly donation, I am not sure where it would best be used. I'll have to ask around. I have just started a new church, so am not too familiar with the internal workings, just yet.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Libs

[zerinus]

I agree. That means we need to study the NT carefully to see what sorts of things in the Torah were superseded in the new covenant and what sorts of things were not. When we do this, we find that all of the ritual or external religious observances (circumcision, sacrifices, festivals, etc.) and all of the dietary restrictions of the Torah were made obsolete or non-binding by the coming of Christ (Mark 7; Acts 10-11, 15; Romans 14; Galatians 5-6; Colossians 2; Hebrews 8-10; etc.). Although these texts do not specifically mention fasting, it would appear that fasting has some relation to both of these categories of Torah observance and may therefore be regarded as non-binding.

I disagree. Those verses I quoted from Joel are not part of the “Law of Moses”. They are from the “prophets,” and a careful reading of them in context will reveal that they are in fact “prophetic” in nature and are addressing the house of Israel in the last days. Here are those verses again, in context:

Joel 1:

14 Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God, and cry unto the Lord,

15 Alas for the day! for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.

Joel 2:

1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand;

2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.

* * *

11 And the Lord shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the Lord is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

12 Therefore also now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning:

13 And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.

As the highlighted passages make clear, these are all prophetic utternances relating to the last days. They were never abrogated by Jesus Christ, otherwise we could not expect the prophecy to be fulfilled.

None of the NT texts that you cited does so.

When Jesus said, "when you fast" (Matt. 6:16-17), he was not commanding fasting but speaking about a religious activity that his disciples were accustomed to doing at that time under the old covenant. We know that he was not commanding them to observe the Jewish fasts because later Matthew reports (as do Mark and Luke) that disciples of John the Baptist noticed that Jesus' disciples were not fasting when they and the Pharisees fasted--and Jesus defended his disciples' lack of participation (Matt. 9:14-15; Mark 2:18-20; Luke 5:33-35). In this context, Jesus makes an interesting comment. He says that a time was coming when the "bridegroom" would be taken from them, and at that time the disciples would fast. He is referring here to the time when Jesus was going to die and his disciples would be mourning his loss. That time is over, of course; Jesus is alive, and he is with his disciples through the Holy Spirit (Matt. 18:20; 28:19-20).

Even if we were to assume that Jesus' words "when you fast" implied an expectation that they would indeed fast, these words appear in the same Gospel in which Jesus tells the same disciples that they are to do whatever the scribes and Pharisees require of them from their office "in the chair of Moses" (Matt. 23:2-3). Clearly, Jesus doesn't mean that we are obliged to follow what the modern-day equivalent of the scribes and Pharisees (Jewish Talmudic scholars and rabbis) teach. We are in a different covenantal context now--whether we are Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians.

The other texts you cited, interestingly enough, all have textual difficulties. The words "and fasting" are omitted from some manuscripts in Mark 9:29, but included in so many of them that one might plausibly argue for retaining them there. However, most modern versions omit them because the manuscript evidence is best explained by the view that the words were added early in the Gospel's manuscript history (since no reasonable explanation has been given for why copyists would have left them out). In the parallel passage in Matthew 17:21, the whole verse has been added in mostly later manuscripts, and the manuscript evidence strongly indicates the verse should be omitted there. (It was quite evidently added because the statement was found in the parallel passage in Mark.) That is why it is omitted in several versions (ESV, NET, NIV, NRSV) and put in brackets or italics in other versions (HCSB, NASB). In 1 Corinthians 7:5, the manuscript evidence strongly supports the view that the words "fasting and" were added later, not part of Paul's epistle; they are for that reason omitted in most modern versions (HCSB, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, NRSV, etc.).

Let's look at these texts on the assumption that they do refer to fasting. In Mark 9:29 (and Matthew 17:21), Jesus is not commanding a regular fast. He is speaking of an extraordinary situation in which an individual may be led by God to pray and fast for that specific situation. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 7:5 there is no command to fast. The command is that the husband and wife should not withhold themselves sexually from each other except for periods when they choose together to spend time in fasting and prayer. In this context it is even possible to understand "fasting" to mean fasting from sexual relations rather than from food. In any case, there's no regulated, commanded fast. In fact, there is no such thing in the NT at all. Even if one wanted to maintain that one or more of these verses supported the idea that Christians should fast, none of them teaches that there is a specific fast that all Christians should observe.

As a Mormon, you are of course required to accept your leaders' teaching that God has commanded the monthly fast. I, on the other hand, am not. Either way, there is no basis for such a command in the New Testament.

The LDS requirement to fast falls into the same category of fasting that is recommended by implication in the NT passages cited. If those (in your opinion) do not amount to a commandment to fast, then neither is the LDS requirement. On the other hand, if you are going to insist on taking the LDS observation as a commandment, then you will have to regard the NT references as such too, because they essentially fall into the same category.

[Vance]

We know that he was not commanding them to observe the Jewish fasts because later Matthew reports (as do Mark and Luke) that disciples of John the Baptist noticed that Jesus' disciples were not fasting when they and the Pharisees fasted--and Jesus defended his disciples' lack of participation (Matt. 9:14-15; Mark 2:18-20; Luke 5:33-35).

Well, lets look at all of the verses in context.

Matt 9:14 ¶ Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?

15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

Mark 2:18 And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?

19 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.

20 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

Luke 5:33 ¶ And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?

34 And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?

35 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

In this context, Jesus makes an interesting comment. He says that a time was coming when the "bridegroom" would be taken from them, and at that time the disciples would fast.

True, but, as usual you skip over another important part, the part about "as long as the bridegroom is with them" or "while the bridegroom is with them".

He is referring here to the time when Jesus was going to die and his disciples would be mourning his loss.

And as usual, you get it wrong because you skipped over the parts that don't fit with your anti-Mormon mime

That time is over, of course; Jesus is alive, and he is with his disciples through the Holy Spirit (Matt. 18:20; 28:19-20).

Yes, Jesus is alive, but contrary to you drivel Jesus is NOT with us. Yes, the Holy Spirit is with His true disciples, but still, Jesus is not with us.

As we all know, the Holy Spirit is NOT Jesus.

Edited to add the words of Jesus,

Jn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Vance

[Bernard Gui]

It's a madhouse! A madhouse!

Bernard

[TNBu]

I appreciate the LDS tradition of fasting and giving fast offerings. However, I prefer my congregation's traditions-- we collect food and donations weekly before services, manage a rotating shift of volunteers at a local soup kitchen, manage a rotating shift of volunteers at the local food bank, and volunteer time at a community garden to provide fresh vegetables for the homeless and needy. We also have a number of "extreme" couponers who organize together and use their coupon skills to acquire toiletries and food items to donate.

While I think that any encouragement to give to the needy is always worthy, it's presumptuous to assume that the LDS way is the most worthy of emulation. Feeding the hungry is not a once-a-month two-meal financial commitment for us-- it's something we do constantly. No "challenge" is necessary.

[altersteve]

Feeding the hungry is not a once-a-month two-meal financial commitment for us-- it's something we do constantly.

It's something the Church does constantly too.

[bluebell]

I appreciate the LDS tradition of fasting and giving fast offerings. However, I prefer my congregation's traditions-- we collect food and donations weekly before services, manage a rotating shift of volunteers at a local soup kitchen, manage a rotating shift of volunteers at the local food bank, and volunteer time at a community garden to provide fresh vegetables for the homeless and needy. We also have a number of "extreme" couponers who organize together and use their coupon skills to acquire toiletries and food items to donate

I think that is so awesome. Many members in my ward do those same things (personally or in groups), but it's not a 52 weeks a year church organized event like it appears to be in your church. It would probably be easier to get more ward members invovled if it was, which would be so great.

Some things are organized weekly however. My husband is doing hospital visits tonight, which happens every week and the members rotate who goes, for example. LDS definitely don't (or shouldn't in case some are slow on the uptake) believe that service or caring for each other is a once a month thing.

.

While I think that any encouragement to give to the needy is always worthy, it's presumptuous to assume that the LDS way is the most worthy of emulation. Feeding the hungry is not a once-a-month two-meal financial commitment for us-- it's something we do constantly. No "challenge" is necessary.

I agree. The 'challenge' seems to be geared towards those people who want to help the needy and might want an organized way to do so once a month. I don't believe the OP at all meant that once a month was the gold standard, or that there weren't others who were already doing much more.

No one wins when people start to claim that they are more charitable than someone else. We've all got our own motes and beams to look after. Service shouldn't be a competition where one group has to look bad in order for the other to look good.

Edited December 14, 2011 by bluebell

[Bernard Gui]

While I think that any encouragement to give to the needy is always worthy, it's presumptuous to assume that the LDS way is the most worthy of emulation. Feeding the hungry is not a once-a-month two-meal financial commitment for us-- it's something we do constantly. No "challenge" is necessary.

You obviously haven't read the complete thread. Feeding the hungry is not a once-a-month two-meal financial commitment for the LDS either. No one has suggest it is the most worthy of emulation. It is worthy of emulation.

Bernard

[TNBu]

It's something the Church does constantly too.

You obviously haven't read the complete thread. Feeding the hungry is not a once-a-month two-meal financial commitment for the LDS either. No one has suggest it is the most worthy of emulation. It is worthy of emulation.

Bernard

I don't doubt that LDS church members do more than just fast offerings-- and I applaud that. It just seems arrogant to presume to school other faiths (for example, "challenge" them to operate "the LDS way" on a particular point) as if other churches don't already have programs in place that are operating effectively.

That kind of stuff rubs people the wrong way about Mormons-- a more circumspect attitude is probably warranted.

[KevinG]

Wow- we have some people schooling the LDS on not doing it right and others being offended that this challenge is presumptuous and somehow "schooling" others. I am particularly amused that someone would come to an LDS themed board and school the LDS on how presumptuous it is to school others about their religious practices.

Bernard is over the target and catching flak!

Edited December 14, 2011 by DaddyG

[bluebell]

Wow- we have some people schooling the LDS on not doing it right and others being offended that this challenge is presumptuous and somehow "schooling" others. I am particularly amused that someone would come to an LDS themed board and school the LDS on how presumptuous it is to school others about their religious practices.

Irony is always entertaining.

[Bernard Gui]

I don't doubt that LDS church members do more than just fast offerings-- and I applaud that. It just seems arrogant to presume to school other faiths (for example, "challenge" them to operate "the LDS way" on a particular point) as if other churches don't already have programs in place that are operating effectively.

That kind of stuff rubs people the wrong way about Mormons-- a more circumspect attitude is probably warranted.

Before you go on being wrongly rubbed, you should read the entire thread. No one is presuming to school anyone. It was even suggested to spread the fast offering concept to social organizations, work places, sports teams, whatever.

Challenge in this context means an invitation to do the same or better. Give up two meals and donate the money to help the poor......and no one skims anything off the top. It's a simple concept that works for everyone.

And imagine this: fast and donate in addition to whatever else one does in charity! It doesn't cost a penny more or take any time, yet it has a potential to do much good.

Bernard

Edited December 14, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Wow- we have some people schooling the LDS on not doing it right and others being offended that this challenge is presumptuous and somehow "schooling" others. I am particularly amused that someone would come to an LDS themed board and school the LDS on how presumptuous it is to school others about their religious practices.

Bernard is over the target and catching flak!

I've been reflecting on the law of the fast for a long time, wondering how it's beneficial results could be extended beyond our own community. Frankly, I'm astonished that our Christian brethren have taken it so hard, suffering from such extreme heartburn.

I had no idea it would become a bone of contention.

Seems to me we are in the same game here...following the Savior's admonition to care for the poor. Looks like even that is controversial...if it comes from the Mormons.

Go figure.

Bernard

Edited December 14, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Isaiah 58:6

"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?

8

Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.

9

Then you will call, and the LORD will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I. "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.

11

The LORD will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land and will strengthen your frame. You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Bernard Gui