Fasting From Disobedience

During the reign of King Darius in Persia, God-fearing people who resettled in Bethel sent word to the prophet Zechariah with a question:  should they continue to fast on the 5th month as they had while in captivity in Babylon?  We are not told precisely what their motive was that prompted this question.  Perhaps fasting seemed unnecessary since they were back in the land of their inheritance.  Would God be displeased if they left off this tradition they had kept dutifully for decades?  Was there any benefit of fasting any longer?

Zechariah 7:4-7 states, "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 during those seventy years, did you really fast for Me--for Me? ⁶ When you eat and when you drink, do you not eat and drink for yourselves? ⁷ Should you not have obeyed the words which the LORD proclaimed through the former prophets when Jerusalem and the cities around it were inhabited and prosperous, and the South and the Lowland were inhabited?'"  God asked His pious people a probing question:  when they fasted and mourned in the 5th and 7th months, was that really for God's sake?  Was it something He commanded they do, a sort of penance to express sorrow for past sins?  God revealed they had voluntarily fasted for themselves--just as they ate and drank for themselves.  They laid a heavy yoke upon themselves God never placed on their shoulders.  No wonder it was burdensome!

God revealed His people previously had spiritually starved themselves by refusing to heed His word and warnings by the prophets He sent.  It was not months of fasting and mourning that caused them to be established in Canaan, for it was according to God's promise and covenant.  Disobedience to God caused them to be defeated and taken captive by their enemies, and they afflicted themselves with misery.  God was not impressed by their forgoing of food when they ought to have obeyed Him to bring their tithes and offerings to the temple while it stood.  To obey is better than sacrifice.  The LORD pointed out they and their fathers would have done much better to simply obey God who established them in the land and made them prosperous.  Obedience to present themselves before the LORD with their firstfruits literally would have led to feasting in the presence of God.

God did not leave His people in doubt concerning His commands in Zechariah 7:8-10, for He repeated what He had spoken by the Law and prophets:  "Then the word of the LORD came to Zechariah, saying, ⁹ "Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'Execute true justice, show mercy and compassion everyone to his brother. ¹⁰ Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. Let none of you plan evil in his heart against his brother.'"  God's standard of righteousness, justice and equity remained unchanged.  God wasn't commanding His people to deny themselves food for a month:  He wanted them to obey Him and permanently fast from sin!  Obeying God's command by faith in Him would be far more profitable than feeling the pinch of hunger.  It seems the 70 years of fasting hadn't reformed the people at all in their dealings with one another.  If they would not hear and obey His word, why should He hear them--especially when they only fasted with self-serving motivation?