Spirituality

"Christ in the Wilderness" (1872) by Ivan Kramskoi. Wikimedia Commons photo

Friday, March 14, 2025Spirituality

Submit a Letter to the Editor

The Jewish people, like the Greeks, such as the followers of Pythagoras, believed that numbers held a key to reality.

Question: Why is Lent 40 days?
Answer: Lent is 40 days for us because it is a time when we imitate Jesus, when he was led by the Spirit into the desert to fast and be tempted by the devil (Matt 4:1), and this time for Jesus lasted 40 days.
But this answer only kicks the can down the road. Why did it last 40 days for Jesus? Or, rather, why did he choose to make it last 40? -- because he could have fasted for 10 days, or 50, or 100. If God, who is a rational being, does not choose anything without a reason, then there must be a reason. It was entirely up to him. Why did he pick 40? That is why the Fathers of the Church thought about this question and tried to answer it.
You may have heard of what is called "numerology." Numerology in the interpretation of Scripture is reasoned speculation about the meaning of the numbers of things. Why were there 12 Apostles? Why 12 tribes of the Jewish people? Why did Jesus suffer for three hours on the cross? Why did God create the world for six days and then rest on the seventh?
The Jewish people, like the Greeks, such as the followers of Pythagoras, believed that numbers held a key to reality. In our time, the numbers of physical science have crowded out all other numerical speculation: Avogadro's number, the gravitational constant, and pi. But there is room still for numerology in matters of our faith. It is a reasonable project.

St. Pope Gregory the Great offered three theories to explain the 40 days of Lent. One theory was that "the power of the Ten Commandments is preserved in the Four Gospels, and 10 x 4 = 40." It is a simple theory but with several interesting implications. For instance, that there were Ten Commandments was known to all when Jesus fasted in the desert, but that there would be just four Gospels was not known. Therefore, his fasting for 40 days was based on divine foreknowledge. Also, the theory would imply that if no Gospels had been written, then there would have been no time of fasting. Also, it would imply that there is an interval of fasting per Gospel, which is 10 days. Also, it would imply that each Gospel is as important as each Commandment -- a rather weighty testimony to the importance of studying each Gospel well -- and understanding its distinctive contribution.
What would it be for us to live Lent with this same understanding, that the interval is the result of the mutual amplification of the Commandments and the Gospels?
St. Gregory's second theory is this: "In this mortal body we consist of four elements by the delights of which we go against the Lord's precepts received by the Decalogue. And as we transgress the Decalogue through the lusts of this flesh, it is fitting that we afflict the flesh 40-fold."
By the four elements, he means earth, air, fire, and water, which he takes to compose our physical body. However, the modern system of elements is different. About 21 of the elements of the periodic table are contained in the human body. I suppose then that proponents of "the development of doctrine" should hold that, given new sensibilities, Lent for us should last 210 days. Or maybe development here would mean that we look for a different set of corporeal offenders, say, the eyes, the stomach, the sexual organs, and the visual cortex.
But again, we can ask: What it would mean to think of Lent as originally 10 days of mortification, one for each Commandment we have transgressed but multiplied fourfold because of four ways by which we are led to transgress them in our bodies?
St. Gregory's third theory is that Lent is a tithe and, therefore, should be a 10th of the year or about 36 days, which he arrives at by counting from the first Sunday of Lent (not Ash Wednesday) and subtracting all the Sundays. It's a good theory for explaining our Lent, perhaps, but it would imply, it seems, that Jesus should have fasted 36 days.
St. Augustine seems to think that whatever number is assigned to Lent must also explain Pentecost. Therefore, it must have some essential connection to 50. He observes that 40 has this characteristic because its aliquot factors (that is, factors other than the number itself), are 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 20, which add up to 50.
But he gets at 40 by saying that Lent is a time of reparation for our total offense against our total life, and we offend it through the body (he agrees with Gregory that the body has four components), while the totality of life may be represented by 10. This totality is: God's life, our invisible life, and our visible life. God's life is Father, Son, and Spirit (3); our invisible life is mind, heart, and soul (3), and our visible life is the body in its components (4).
Numerology tends to go astray if it regards meaningful numbers as necessitated. Presumably, Jesus did not need to fast for 40 days. It suffices to say that 40 days were fitting: there's something beautiful and choice-worthy about that number. And if you disagree with St. Gregory's or St. Augustine's accounts as to why, nothing keeps you from proposing something better yourself.

- Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is a professor in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD, with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His latest book is "Mary's Voice in the Gospel of John." You may follow him on X (twitter) @michael_pakaluk.