Forum
Many celebrate Lent, we give up things as an example presumably because Jesus gave up things and lived only on what he could find in the wilderness. We celebrate Lent on the run up to Easter, though it had almost nothing to do with the time of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.
Has anyone asked Jesus what he did during the 40 days and 40 nights out in the wilderness? What was it all about and why so long?
The answer is clear for each of us to hear - and some of it is reflected back from his words “I am the way, and the truth, and the life”, certainly some of the most important words he ever shared.
Some saw the time spent in the desert as a time of testing, of temptation and the deprivation and hunger enhanced these experiences. This is not really what it was all about.
Many will say that it was time spent preparing for his ministry - this is more accurate, but still misses the point.
This was a time of preparation for certain, for he could foresee what his emergence into the world as not just a healer but much more than that would result in. The temptation to be less than he could be, to dilute who he was and the message he carried must have been compelling, for by doing so he could become a great sage, a leading religious person of the established religious hierarchies - this was the temptation. If he refused that and followed what he knew was right, if he truly was to be “the way, and the truth, and the life”, setting the example for everyone on how to live, then the consequences would bring about his death, and of course all that followed.
Forty days and forty nights of screwing up the courage to face a future that would need an inordinate kind of resolve and fortitude, to exhibit that even in these circumstances there is a right way to live, to remain true to his beliefs throughout it all, and to live his life in the manner he knew was the right manner - secluded and alone while he contemplated the options, the temptation of compromise or the hard road of honesty. Finding the way to express what he knew and wanted to say in a manner that would mean things to the common man but without exposing himself to the religious fanatics too early, planning and re-planning the route that his life would take once he emerged from the wilderness, using all the things he had learned through his life to encapsulate “the way, and the truth, and the life” and knowing that no matter how hard it would be, that God, his Father would sustain him. Showing people the way of love and compassion by example in a world that was hard and uncaring was a dangerous thing to do and he would make many enemies. Ultimately there would be only one outcome, the cost would be high and he had to be prepared to pay the price without flinching and without deviation or compromise, but this was the heart of the message of salvation for the people of the world and it was important to accept that. Somewhere along the line he had to try and protect those who followed him, not just those who he eventually called friends and finally disciples, but many others who could easily get caught up in the events.
This was no matter to be faced lightly, but it is what we now celebrate as Lent. Yet how many of us ask what it was like in the wilderness, how many instead of celebrating it as part of Easter and giving up chocolate or cigarettes, actually spiritually walk in his shoes during that time, or walk beside him and just give love and support, hold his hand in acceptance, or give him a hug? This is the true way to celebrate Lent, to understand and comprehend the magnitude of the decisions he made and applaud the courage that those decisions took, to feel compassion and love for the man inside the God - to recognise the temptations of compromise and still have the bravery to follow the road he showed us, “the way, and the truth, and the life”, the road to grace.
love
chris
Beautiful Chris - thank you.
Love and peace,
Judy
Thanks for that wonderful post, Chris.
I didn't even know, not being your usual kind of Christian, that Lent had to do with the time in the wilderness.
I'd just add a thought or two about that account of his time in the wilderness. Obviously we know almost nothing, as he didn't emerge and talk about it. I've no problem with the fact that he did it (California-types and Indians still fast for a month or more, for healing purposes actually; I've tried it a few days, and after about 3 days hunger goes away, so it's not SO hard to do, but you have to be wise about it.) However, I don't really view Jesus even before his ministry as someone who much needed to face and test himself. So I'm sure that inner, spiritual things were what it was all about, and in one sense it's even allegorical even if it happened. (The 'devil' or Satan for example. I tend to see the temptation stories of "Satan" not as from a being, but from one's inner psychology - but I could be wrong.)
(There's no reason why the fast shouldn't have happened: as I explain above it's nothing extraordinary even today. 40 days is about the max anyone should go, as after that the practise is truly deleterious.) Edit to add: no-one should try it unsupervised, and for almost anyone I'd say 40 days is excessive. Why not stick to a week for most of us? The 'healing' aspect is simply that a fast clears toxins; you certainly still drink plenty of pure water. But fasting is off-topic...
From non-biblical and esoteric sources, I've read that Jesus did a number of things which frankly were easy for him, simply because he wanted to set a precedent that he'd done all those things in his life. I realise this isn't biblical, for example, but in esoteric lore there's the tradition that he went to Egypt as a young man in his early 20s and went through a number of initiatory trials there (concerning how to Resurrect a body) which were not easy for most people - to say the least. (The Resurrection was not a "miracle" but a spiritual science for Adepts.)
The Egyptian priesthood said to him, that they knew he could pass the trials and there was no need. But he wanted to set the record - to do everything that others should do in his footsteps. Or, not to appear 'special' with privilages. Or, maybe he wanted to be absolutely certain that he could fulfill his mission when aged 30-33.
We'll never know just what those 40 days in the wilderness entailed.
It's like ... think of how little of his words, from a whole lifetime, we actually have recorded in the New Testament. It's a tiny, minute fraction of his whole teaching - so what was the rest of it? Not just repetition, surely? I've always been interested in the 40 "days and nights" in the upper room after his Resurrection, when he taught his closest disciples ceaslessly - for 40 whole days and nights!:eek: These to me were clearly deep, deep teachings such as St. Paul called "meat" as compared to the "milk" for the masses in the gospels. (The gospels are wonderful, truly, but St. Paul referred to such teachings as "milk" i.e. for spiritual "babes". Whereas advanced disciples recieve the "adult" "meat" which isn't written down there.)
In other words, yes, I'm saying that Christianity today only knows a tiny fraction of what Jesus really taught. They have the "milk for babes" in the gospels, but the "meat" was either never written down, or is lost now. Origen and Clement of Alexandria received some of those teachings verbally from people who knew the disciples, and you'll find them in their writings... Just as a taster, early church father such as Clement and Origen had no doubt that Jesus taught about reincarnation, also that there are "fallen angels" incarnated today as if human.
Those teachings of 40 days and nights aren't in the Bible at all. Only that it took place. It would be fascinating to know what those 40 days of teaching consisted of.
If anyone at all talks for literally 40 days and nights, it would fill volume after volume of books! We can be sure IMHO that it was not just a repetition of "Love one another". That's a starting point, but IMHO it went deep - into things that would utterly startle Christians today.
V