Tertullian, On Fasting 10

They know our fasts as unworthy, and some even blame those established for the evening by calling them a novelty, claiming this service, too, must be performed by choice and not extended beyond the ninth hour—according to their own custom, of course. But on the question of prohibition I will answer once and for all. Now, on the specific point of timing: first let them explain where they get this new rule for dismissing fasts. If they appeal to the fact that Peter and his companions are recorded entering the temple for prayer at the ninth hour (Acts 3:1), who will prove they had actually fasted that day, so that the ninth hour could be taken as the fast's conclusion and end? You will more easily find Peter going up to the roof to pray at the sixth hour for the sake of taking food (Acts 10:9), so that the day's sixth hour might be finished by this service, which appeared to conclude after prayer. Moreover, when Luke's own account shows the third hour of prayer, when the Spirit-initiated were taken for drunkards; the sixth, when Peter went up to the roof; and the ninth, when they entered the temple—why do we not understand that, with complete indifference, we may always and everywhere and at every time pray, yet these three hours, as the more notable ones in human affairs—the hours that divide the day, distinguish business, and publicly resound—were therefore also the more solemn for divine prayers? Daniel's practice of praying three times daily supports this: he certainly excepted certain hours, and no others than the notable ones, which became the Apostolic hours of the third, sixth, and ninth (Daniel 6:10). Hence I say Peter observed the ninth hour out of an older custom, having prayed at the third hour with the service of the highest prayer. I say this for those who think they follow Peter's form but do not know it—not that we reject the ninth hour, to which we also observe the fourth day of the week and the sixth extensively; but because we must supply a worthy reason for what is kept by tradition precisely to the degree it lacks Scriptural authority, until it is confirmed or corrected by some heavenly charism. As the Lord says, "If you are ignorant of anything, the Lord will reveal it to you." So, setting aside the Paraclete, the confirmer of all these things and guide into all truth, I ask whether a more unworthy reason is offered for keeping the ninth hour, such that the same reason would have to be assigned to Peter if he indeed fasted then. For the ninth hour derives from the Lord's departure, which ought always to be commemorated without distinction of hours, yet we are more closely bound to it at that hour by the very word 'station': soldiers never forget their oath, and they are more obedient to their posts. Therefore the fast must be kept until that hour when, from the sixth hour onward, the darkened world performed a mournful service with the Lord dead, so that we too may return to joy when the world received its light. If this better suits Christian religion by celebrating Christ's glory, I can equally fix the rule for a late fast from the same sequence: we fast until evening, awaiting the hour of the Lord's burial, when Joseph requested and laid the body in the tomb. It becomes irreligious to refresh the flesh of servants before the Lord's. I have allowed this argument only under provocation—conjecture against conjecture—yet I think I have answered the faithful more faithfully. Let us see if the ancient records also support anything like this. In Exodus, was not Moses' stance against Amalek, persevering in prayer until sunset, a late fast (Exodus 17:11)? Do we think Joshua ate on the day he commanded the very elements to stand still for a fast while fighting the Amorites? The sun stood still at Gibeon and the moon at Aijalon; the sun stood still in mid-heaven and did not hasten to set for a whole day; there was no day like it before or since, so prolonged, that God might hear the man, equal to the sun, persisting so long in the service—a late and longer fast (Joshua 10:12-14). Saul, too, established in battle, explicitly imposed this service: "Cursed is the man who eats bread until evening, until I am avenged on my enemy"; none of his people tasted food, and all the land fasted (1 Samuel 14:24). God gave such authority to that fast's edict that Jonathan, Saul's son, though ignorant of the fast defined until evening, tasted honey and was handed over by lot for the offense, barely escaping death through the people's prayer—guilty of gluttony, though innocent (1 Samuel 14:24). And Daniel, in the first year of King Darius, fasting in sackcloth and ashes while making confession to God, said: "While I was still speaking in prayer, behold, the man I had seen in the vision at the first flew swiftly and touched me at the time of the evening sacrifice" (Daniel 9:3). This is the late fast: fasting until evening, it offers a fuller prayer to God.