Fasting for Lent, Part 1: How Did Jesus Fast for 40 Days?

This first full week of Lent begins with the Gospel reading of Jesus' fast in the desert and his immediate battle with Satan's temptations afterward. After all, we get the length of Lent from the 40-day period of Jesus' fast in the desert. Assuming that Jesus fasted for literally 40 days, during which "he ate nothing" (Luke 4:2), has anyone seriously considered how Jesus was able to go 40 days without eating anything when most humans will die within two weeks without food or water? This is the question I try to answer in this post.

"Eating" words from God

Possibly the quickest answer to the question is found in Jesus' reply to Satan when he tried to get Jesus to turn stones into bread. Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Jesus gave a similar but slightly different response to His disciples who implored Him to eat: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work" (John 4:34). Synthesizing these two verses, Jesus appears to be saying that obeying instructions from God is just as nourishing as physical food.

Jesus isn't the only example of someone being able to endure a lack of an essential need by using some kind of spiritual aid. For example, I remember reading how St. Francis of Assisi would go without warm clothes in winter, claiming that his love for God kept him warm. Also, I remember reading how St. Benedict endured a long fast for Lent (maybe not as intense as that of Jesus) and refused the treats his friend Romanus brought to Benedict's cave of Subiaco for Easter, saying that the simple Easter joy and visit of that friend were enough. However, is any good Christian able to endure 40 days of no food at all simply from hearing the words and doing the will of God, or does that require a special kind of person - a divine person?

Proof that Jesus is the Son of God, but not as proof for Satan

After Jesus completed 40 days of fasting, Satan tried tempting Him. Two of three temptations start with "If you are the Son of God..." Both involve some kind of miracle for Satan's or the world's entertainment: turning stones into bread or jumping off the highest part of a temple without injury. However, I wonder if Jesus already proved He is the Son of God by enduring 40 days without food, not for Satan's or anyone else's entertainment but simply because He could. The longest recorded time that anyone has gone without any food or drink is 18 days. The longest recorded time that anyone has gone without solid food is much longer at 382 days. All of that information is taken from Guiness World Records. Assuming that Jesus didn't carry any kind of drink with Him, or that nobody gave Him any while He was in the desert, 40 days without food or drink would be truly miraculous. Why, then, did Satan ask for more miracles and not get Jesus to do them? I think it was for selfish reasons, just as Jesus' opponents and Herod Antipas asked for miracles knowing that Jesus already performed some. As far as I can think of, every miracle Jesus performed was for the good of the person involved, whether that was healing or casting out demons. In His first miracle, it was to prevent the embarrassment of running out of wine at a wedding feast. Jesus never performed miracles just to entertain or impress someone. If His 40-day fast was in fact a miracle, I might place it in the category of manifesting His divinity, like in the Transfiguration. But what if Jesus' fast was not a complete absence of food and drink?

A Partial Fast?

Perhaps Jesus' 40-day fast was not a complete absence of food and drink, but instead a very reduced intake of those each day. After all, the world record for fasting from food but not drink is 382 days. If the Gospel of Luke's account is literally true in saying Jesus ate nothing for those 40 days, that might not mean He drank nothing. Perhaps He had a supply of water with Him, or maybe wine. He also could have had a few disciples by that time who could have brought Him something to drink. There were also a few towns on the outskirts of the Judean Desert where Jesus is believed to have fasted, including the eastern suburbs of Jerusalem itself and also Jericho. Unless His disciples were good at navigating the desert or were with Him the whole time, however, I'm not sure that these ideas are really the best ones.

Conclusion

The Gospels don't say how Jesus was able to fast for 40 days, or what His fasting entailed. However, if He was alone that whole time (and that seems most plausible), He might not have been getting food or drink that much. Bringing food and drink with Him could have been a considerable burden for a solo retreat into a desert for 40 days. The first temptation thrown to Jesus after the fast, after all, is about turning stones into bread rather than using up leftover food and drink or going into the nearest town to buy some. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that Jesus was eating and drinking nothing at all, unless He was living on whatever desert wildlife and plants were around. This would mean that Jesus miraculously fasted for over twice as long as anyone in the Guiness Book of World Records has, because Jesus is the Son of God and lives not on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.

With Jesus' 40-day fast in mind as the template for the length of Lent today, how did early Christians fast for Lent without depriving themselves of all food and drink? That's the topic I will research about for the next part.

Is the Syrian Civil War Finally About to End?

The current military situation in Syria, taken from Wikipedia's current map.

This blog post may seem late to some. Over a year ago now, in late November and early December 2024, a sudden offensive coming from Islamist groups in the northwest and later from every enemy of Assad's government controlling land in Syria helped to topple the regime quickly after a mostly quiet five-year period. The Assad regime was toppled, Assad himself fled to Russia, and a new president has taken control who has already met with many world leaders as such. So why am I only talking about a potential end to the war now? Here's a long overview of the Syrian Civil War's metamorphosis for context.

The Many Phases and Factions of the Syrian Civil War

The Syrian Civil War has gone through a wild metamorphosis since its beginning. It began as part of the wider Arab Spring, with rebels who hated Assad's authoritarian rule deciding to rise up and occupy scattered pockets of land across the country. For the first year or so (I'm using this video for reference) that's exactly how it was, a straightforward two-sided conflict between the Assad government and rebels. The Kurds introduced themselves as a third side on the northern border in March 2012, occupying areas where Kurds were the dominant ethnic group. No surprise there, given the Kurds' decades-long independence movement in the region. But then, on the border with Iraq, the Islamic State emerged as a fourth side, rearing its ugly head until by late 2014 it controlled perhaps over half the country! Even al-Qaeda (or at least al-Qaeda-like Islamist groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) emerged as a fifth faction in the northwest part of the country among rebel-controlled areas there. By that point, the Syrian Civil War was no longer the government versus rebels but instead an elimination game for the future of Syria, or in the Kurds' case a part of Syria. By late 2015, the Kurds (or SDF, Syrian Democratic Forces) united many of their small pockets in the north as they took land from ISIS and proved to be one of ISIS' most formidable opponents. 

2016 saw foreign countries occupy parts of Syria, too. In March, American and other allied forces captured and held Al-Tanf on the Iraqi border, holding that and some of the surrounding area while helping the Syrian rebels (more specifically, the New Syrian Army). Then, in March, Turkish forces crossed the border and took much of what ISIS had on that border, which was understandable, but the Turks later attacked the SDF too. Then what did the war become? It was the government versus rebels versus Kurds versus ISIS versus al-Qaeda versus foreign troops.

Government forces and the SDF started making a lot of progress in the fight against ISIS in 2017 and 2018. By this point, the Americans counted SDF as an ally, to the chagrin of Turkey who considered the SDF the same as the Kurdish terrorist group PKK in Turkey (but I think the Turks are wrong). Therefore, the Turks launched another incursion into Syria in March 2018, specifically against the Kurds in Afrin, northwest Syria. Despite the distraction and defeat by Turkey, the SDF held their ground against ISIS in the east and by this point the SDF controlled most of Syria east of the Euphrates. In March 2019, the SDF dealt the final blow to ISIS, territorially speaking, in the Battle of Baghuz Fawqani.

After ISIS lost all its territory, the front lines changed only a handful of times. Turkey launched another invasion into SDF territory in October 2019 and took a strip of land along the border. After that, apart from occasional nibbles by Assad's government at rebel-held and al-Qaeda-held territory in the northwest, the situation was rather stable. Assad's government held most of the country west of the Euphrates, and the SDF east of the Euphrates, with American-backed rebels holding out around al-Tanf and a mix of other groups including al-Qaeda affiliates holding out in and around Idlib. Lots of airstrikes happened there, but few ground offensives. Meanwhile, Turkey held a few pieces of land along the northern border. Therefore, from October 2019 to November 2024, the war was almost a frozen conflict, and the rebels controlled less territory than the government or the SDF.

The Fall of the Assad Regime to Today

All of the sudden, in late November and early December 2024, both the northwestern and southeastern rebel groups joined in a lightning offensive. On December 8, the Assad regime was suddenly no more. This may have been the achievement the rebel groups of 2011 were long waiting for, but it only marked a new phase of the war. The rebel groups of 2024 were still from different ideologies, while Turkey still occupied pieces in the north part of the country, Kurds controlled northeastern Syria, and American troops still had a base at al-Tanf. Israel decided to expand the frontline at the Golan Heights from 1967 by a few miles as soon as the Assad regime was toppled, and Turkey decided to take even more land in the north from the SDF. In February last year, the Druze minority in southern Syria rebelled against the new government and now has a piece of Syria to themselves for now.

There are some new developments which might indicate that peace is finally near. Negotiations between the SDF and the new government (which happened from a union of the al-Qaeda affiliate Tahrir al-Sham and American-backed rebels, a strange fact) have been happening since late 2024. In March last year, the SDF agreed to integrate into the new Syrian government, but still held that large area of northeastern Syria. The new Syrian Army, it seems, decided to hasten that integration by force, making another lightning offensive directed at the SDF rather than Assad's regime. The SDF still has parts of northeastern Syria now after that offensive a month ago, but not much of the Euphrates valley anymore. The SDF also renewed its promise to integrate into the new government when the ceasefire from a month ago was announced. Last month, the Turks also agreed to give their occupied territories to the new Syrian government. Finally, something happened recently which made me write this post. Over a week ago, American troops withdrew from al-Tanf, giving that part of Syria to the new government as well.

There are now two or three factions for the new Syrian government to deal with, violently or peacefully. As I mentioned, the SDF has agreed to integrate into the new Syrian government, and we'll see how long that takes. The two factions that still have parts of Syria and have no intention of withdrawal are the Supreme Legal Committee in Suwayda (i.e. the local Druze government in southern Syria) and the Israeli occupation of part of southwestern Syria. Israel has been an ally of the Druze since they rebelled last July, and given that the new president of Syria is the former leader of an al-Qaeda affiliated group (very much opposed to Israel) we will see if that aspect of the conflict flares up again, or if it just becomes a frozen conflict and the occupation by Israel becomes a permanent one added to the Golan Heights.