FWIW, Jesus does not seem to fasted prior to his baptism. The 40 day fast you reference was after his baptism.Valerie wrote:Perhaps the Church at that time the Didache was written was recognizing the need to fast prior to Chrismation, where they are anointed with oil to receive the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was deposited into the Church to guide Her, not a text book and again you are assuming they were writing everything down step by step. This assumption is what has led to myriads of understandings, practices, ordinances etc, based on Sola Scriptura but the Scripture never taught Sola Scriptura- they had the Living Word, and Holy Spirit, guiding them- to assume fasting prior to baptism is not a 'good' thing is to not really understand fasting it seems. If our Lord thought it necessary to fast 40 days, I'm not sure why we criticize it. Where was it 'written' for Him to do this? But again, He is the one who pointed out his disciples were unable to heal the young man because of their 1) unbelief & 2) "this kind" cannot come out but by prayer & fasting. He understands fasting, more than we do.
Also, according to the Gospels, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus before the 40 day period you reference. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention that the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness. Do we really think the purpose of the fast was to empty Jesus of his self-will and make room for an infilling of the Spirit? Seems if that was the case he would have fasted prior to his baptism rather than after.
Matthew and Luke both state that the purpose was to be tempted of the devil, with the fasting mentioned more like an after-thought (possibly to better explain the temptation to turn stones into bread). Mark doesn't even mention the fast. To teach that this experience somehow suggests that Christians should fast for 40 days (with the focus on fasting) twists the real focus of the temptation period as recorded in the Gospels.