These are my Lenten Reflections from last year. I hope this helps you in your own contemplation of the season:

It struck me, while I was listening to the the priest’s homily, that nearly every homily, if not every, that I’ve heard on the readings of the First Sunday of Lent always seem to focus on temptation. It’s always about how we’re tempted and how we need to be more like Jesus. This is true, and I don’t want to take away from that. It is most important that we be more like Christ. In fact, this weekend’s homily seemed to focus quite a bit on some of the things I had mentioned in an earlier post, here, about our identity crisis. But here’s the thing, that sort of reading tends to leave out any real discussion of the second reading, Romans 5:12-19. The homilies about temptation, though entirely necessary, seem rather superficial, and I wonder if a deeper reading of the three passages in light of each other wouldn’t also help to illuminate what Lent is about, how we attach ourselves to the 40 days of fasting of Christ in the wilderness, and even how to deal with temptation.

First, let’s look at the structure of the readings as a whole. The first reading is about Adam and Eve, Genesis 2:7-9; 3:1-7, how they are formed from dust and how God breathes his spirit into them. Then the serpent comes along and tempts them and they mess everything up for the rest of us. Then, there’s the second reading, Romans 5:12-19, which describes how sin entered the world through one man’s disobedience and how sin was overcome by one man’s obedience. It highlights the relation of the old Adam to the new Adam, viz. Christ. The third reading, the Gospel of Matthew 4:1-11, tells us the story of Christ in the wilderness fasting for 40 days and Satan’s tempting of Christ. It’s not everyday that the structure of the readings is this perfect.

So, it seems pretty clear from the structure itself that we are looking at two bookends of salvation history. First, Adam messes things up, and then, Christ goes through the same thing and gets it right. Thus, Adam’s sin is overcome. That’s a little over-simplified, but in fact, that’s the basic structure that we’re looking at according to the second reading. The second reading is our key, in this case, to understanding what we ought to be looking for in the three readings. So, let’s delve into the Genesis readings and give them a fairly close examination.

God creates Adam and Eve from the dust. Let’s remember that for us, Lent begins with one of two proclamations when we receive our ashes. One option goes, “Turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel.” The other option says, “Remember, man you are dust and to dust you shall return.” It’s this second option that I want to reflect on for a little bit. The quote is taken from Genesis 3:19, which reads “By the sweat of your face you will eat bread,  until you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” So, the word ‘Remember,’ which we use in the Ash Wednesday liturgy is an addition that call for us to recall two things: our origin and our death. Our origin is the opening verse of the readings of the First Sunday of Lent, which reads, “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” God took the dust and formed man, and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. God spirated the spirit of life into his nostrils. That’s another way of reading it that can, I think, help us to understand what just happened. The Spirit of God processed forth from God and entered man and gave him life. Whoa! At this point, we should all be thinking, “Whoa!” Adam’s spirit wasn’t just some other spirit, but a created participation in the divine life of God. This created participation in the divine life is a freely given gift, which we would usually refer to as grace. In this situation, however, we aren’t speaking of the grace of Christ, which the letter to the Romans 5:20 makes clear is greater than that which was taken away by Adam’s transgression. Rather, Adam’s gift of a created participation in the divine life is specifically that which makes him man, viz. imago Dei, the image of God. When God breathes His Spirit into Adam, he receives the image of God. Without that Spirit, man is nothing more than dust. With that Spirit, man is a living being made in the very image of God, made with the capacity for communion with Him. But, “Remember,” to dust you shall return, i.e., you are going to die.

When I say that “you are going to die,” I don’t mean to come off mellow dramatic. Instead, what I mean is that we are on a journey to the Cross. Ash Wednesday initiates 40 days of preparation, not just for Easter but for the celebration of the Triduum, the three most holy days of the year. The Triduum celebrates the Institution of the Eucharist, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Christ. Holy Thursday begins with Christ giving His Body in the Eucharist, and follows with the Agony in the Garden. Jesus is arrested, tortured, and sentenced to die by crucifixion. And we, as Christians, celebrate this mystery. Moreover, by virtue of our baptism, we have been made members of the very Body of Christ. So, our celebration not only recalls what happened but is a participation in what happened. Furthermore, the more closely we unite ourselves to Christ, the more fully we participate in the events. Christ’s death oughtn’t to be thought of as simply a passive act, viz. that Christ was killed – the end. Rather, we ought to think of the active aspect of Christ’s death simultaneously, viz. that Christ gave Himself up to death for us and for our sins. Christ offered Himself on the altar of the Cross, where He was both Priest and Victim. The sense of offering here, I believe is the most important aspect of Christ’s death that we participate in every time that we celebrate the liturgy, esp. the celebration of Good Friday. The death that we take part in, on our part, is the full offering of ourselves. We really die when we die to ourselves by virtue of the union between our self-gift and Christ’s self-gift.

Okay, so I’ve departed a little bit from the readings, but this is a very important thing to keep in mind as we discuss them because our origin is related profoundly to our death. That is to say, that the Spirit of God dwelling within us gives us life, and without it, we die. Also, Christ, giving himself as an offering, was nailed to a cross and [enter in Scripture] “…Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit” (Mt 27:50); “And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last” (Mk 15:37); “And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT.’ Having said this, He breathed His last” (Lk 23:46); and finally, “And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit” (Jn 19:30b). Jesus’ death, His self-gift, culminates in the yielding, committing, and giving up of His SPIRIT! We’ll keep this in mind later when we look back at the Responsorial. But for now, let’s move on.

We are continuing with the reflection that we began on the following passages: Genesis 2:7-9, 3:1-7; Romans 5:12-19; Matthew 4:1-11.

We ended by reiterating the importance of the offering of the spirit as integral to death. Moreover, when we offer our spirit we really undergo a sort of death, particularly death to self. So, this first line, “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being,” explicitly reminds us of our origin, and implicitly reminds us of our death. Let’s turn now to the second verse.

After we hear about our origin, we are told about the Garden of Eden. It goes like this: “The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed” (Gen 2:8). So, God plants a garden. Why? It is toward the east. Why? In Eden. Why? It’s pretty easy to break down this sentence into its three main section and ask very relevant questions about it. Why does God plant a garden and not, let’s say, build a house for Adam? Why is the garden planted toward the east and not the west or north or south? East of where? Why in Eden? Well, in order to answer these questions, we have to look at a much larger context. Unfortunately, we don’t have the time to focus on this too much. So, in bad form I’m going to touch on them lightly mentioning three important aspects. First, the garden is not exactly what we think of when we think of a garden. We tend to have this imagery of the classic English gardens with mowed lawns and perfectly symmetrical hedges in all sorts of geometrical shapes. Or, we think of our little, antiquated victory gardens where we grow tomatoes and herbs. What we’re talking about here is something more like the combination of the two. How do we know? Well, because it was placed in Eden. How does that make a difference? The name Eden connotes something like, ‘luxury, delight, finery, etc…’ So, we rightly talk about this place as paradise. Secondly, going back to the victory garden idea, where we grow food. Let’s remember that God didn’t tell them that they could eat of the animals in the garden; rather, he told them to eat of the trees of the garden (cf. Gen 2:16), i.e., all except for the two trees in the middle of the garden. So, why is this place in the east again? The east has always been seen as a more sacred place. It is in the east that the sun rises. Where light overcomes the darkness. For Christians, the rising of the sun is a symbol of the Resurrection, the Rising of the Son. So, in an earthy way, putting the garden in the east is a way of saying that this place is a place of fecundity and life. It’s a place closer to God, who gives life like the sun. Brief, but hopefully sufficient.

So, God goes on to cause the trees in the garden to grow, which are all pleasing to the eye and good for food, but then, he puts two trees in the middle of the garden, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And we know what happens with the tree of knowledge. But, just to remind us, the Church takes out the next several verses for the readings of the day and moves that part up. So, we cut to chapter three, which begins with the serpent. And we know what happens with the serpent, viz. THE TEMPTATION. Right? One of the key themes for the First Sunday of Lent. The theme that we seem to be captivated with. The superficial theme, if you ask me, which I don’t mean in a pejorative way. Many times, the surface level is the most important level. Why try to hide the important stuff with obfuscation? So, let’s take a look at the temptation. In order to do this, I’m going to cheat a little. I’m going to bring in a friend of mine to help me discuss temptation. Introducing… St. John! In the first letter of John we get a paralleled description of temptation. He says, “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world” (1 Jn 2:16). Say what?

It doesn’t say anything about temptation. It’s talking about lust.

Hold on, sparky. Lust is inordinate desire. Temptation is the inordinate desire to do something, particularly testing or trying it out. Hence, Adam and Eve were tempted to eat the forbidden fruit. Why were they tempted? That’s easy. We’re given three reasons, I think. Let’s look at them.

1. “the woman saw that the tree was good for food” (Gen 3:6).
2. “the woman saw that the tree was… a delight to the eyes” (Gen 3:6), “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened…” (Gen 3:5), and “the woman saw that the tree was… desirable to make one wise” (Gen 3:6).
3. “and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5). [also rendered "and you will be as gods, knowing good and evil" in the Vulgata Clementina]

So, now the question is, do these three temptations correspond to what John says?  If we compare John’s list to this list, it looks something like this:

1. lust of the flesh – good for food
2. lust of the eyes – desirable to the eyes, to open one’s eyes, to make one wise
3. boastful pride of life – and you will be as gods

It seems a good match. Now, let’s bring in another friend of mine, St. Thomas Aquinas. What does he think? Well, he says, “Thus, too, did the devil set about the temptation of the first man. For at first he enticed his mind to consent to the eating of the forbidden fruit, saying (Genesis 3:1): ‘Why hath God commanded you that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?’ Secondly [he tempted him] to vainglory by saying: ‘Your eyes shall be opened.’ Thirdly, he led the temptation to the extreme height of pride, saying: ‘You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’” So, St. Thomas uses a different terminology. He replaces lust of the eyes with the temptation of vainglory and the boastful pride of life with the extreme height of pride. Moreover, St. Thomas is speaking within the order of temptation itself, while St. John is speaking within the order of lust or inordinate desire. So, if we understand St. John as addressing the desire and St. Thomas as addressing the desire for the act, then I think we can harmonize both with scripture perfectly.

The second reading comes to us from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans. It goes as follows:  “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many” (Rom 5:12-15).

What St. Paul is telling us here in simple terms is that Adam, ‘through whom sin and death entered into the world,’ is a “type” of Christ, ‘who was to come.’ The word “type” that St. Paul uses means something like, “prefigurement.” In fact, the Latin uses the word “figura,” or figure. This “figure” of Christ, is a sort of model for Christ. But, here’s the catch. Sin entered through Adam. Are we saying that sin enters through Christ? Yes and no. WHOA, WHOA, WHOA! How can sin enter through Christ? Let me explain. It doesn’t exactly enter in through Christ the same way that it did through Adam. So, let’s take a look at what St. Paul says again. We have a tendency to skip over a few things when we read Romans, for some reason. St. Paul says, “…until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Yeah, so? What does this have to do with what you just said? Well, sin entered the world through Adam, right? Right. And even though death reigned, the sin wasn’t “imputed” to the sinner until the Law, right? Right. So, it’s the Law that brings with it ‘culpability.’ Was sin imputed to Adam? Yes. Why? Because he had full knowledge that the act he was doing was contrary to what God had commanded him. That was his sin, but sin isn’t imputed to us when there is no law, no command, etc. This “Law,” Moses gives to Israel, and when he does, sin enters into the world in a new way, as imputed. What are you getting at? Knowledge of the sinful act as a sinful act with full consent of the will makesthe sin. And it’s not just a sinful act anymore. It’s not just ‘a sin.’ When I know it’s wrong and I still do it, it becomes ‘my sin.’ I really become guilty. So, what does that have to do with Christ? St. Paul tells us a little later in his letter to the Romans, “For Christ is the end of the Law…” (Rom 10:4). That’s affirmative, He came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (cf. Mt 5:17). So, when Christ perfects the law, i.e., when he makes the law complete, the full imputation of sin is effected. That is to say, that the sin, in a sense, becomes more of a sin, and not just in itself, more so it becomes more of a sin in me, as ‘.’ So, that’s what I meant when I said “yes” that sin enters the world through Christ. More importantly, the “NO,” sin does not enter the world through Christ as it did through Adam. For, when it entered through Adam, it was on account of Adam committing the sin. CHRIST DID NOT SIN! So, Christ is in fact the opposite of Adam in this regard.

Now, let’s consider this term “figure” as regards Christ doing the opposite of Adam. We’re going to skip a verse or two and come back to them. Let’s return to the words of St. Paul: “The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”

In this selection, St. Paul tells us quite explicitly “death reigned through the one [Adam]…” and “righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.” Furthermore, he reiterates the “through” here saying, “…through one transgression there resulted condemnation…” and “…through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life…” And again, “through the one man’s [Adam's] disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One [Christ] the many will be made righteous.” The repetition of the word through here seems to put a special emphasis on this word as the hinge, if you will, of the analogy. It’s the ‘through-ness’ of Adam and Christ that makes them alike. Righteousness and justification and salvation are offered “through” Christ.

Let’s return then to the few verses that we jumped over, viz. vv.15-16. These two verses point out that what’s offered through Christ is greater than what Adam’s sin effects. That is to say, the penalty on account of sin is proportionate with the sin itself. The gift of Christ is not, however, proportionate with any act that we could do. Hence the name, Gift. We don’t merit the life, righteousness, justification, etc… offered us.

So, now that we understand the ‘key’ as I called it in Part 1 of our reflection, we can continue with the Gospel and Psalm 51.

Wow! We’re almost done. We just covered the analogy of the second reading: Adam is to sin as Christ is to justification. We also focused on the ‘through-ness’ of Adam and Christ. Adam brought sin into the world throughdisobedience, whereas Christ brought justification to the world throughobedience. Both results were effected by the actions taken by the men. Adam sinned, but Christ remained obedient. What is going to make or break the analogy, however, is whether or not the test/temptations are the same, right? If Christ is only tempted with phase one of temptation, that which appeals to the desire of the flesh, then Christ’s actions are not really all that much better than Adam’s. Furthermore, there would be no reason to say that His actions are enough to counteract Adam’s. Christ’s actions must counteract each of Adam’s offenses. So, let’s examine what happens to Christ.

The Gospel reads:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “It is written, `MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’ ” Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, `HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU’; and `ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.’ ” Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, `YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.’ ” Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, `YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’ ” Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.

So, let’s bring back St. Thomas, who has already weighed in on this matter, and allow him to explain whether or not the temptations are the same for Christ. St. Thomas says:

This same order did he observe in tempting Christ. For at first he tempted Him to that which men desire, however spiritual they may be–namely, the support of the corporeal nature by food. Secondly, he advanced to that matter in which spiritual men are sometimes found wanting, inasmuch as they do certain things for show, which pertains to vainglory. Thirdly, he led the temptation on to that in which no spiritual men, but only carnal men, have a part–namely, to desire worldly riches and fame, to the extent of holding God in contempt.

So, the order’s the same, but the temptations aren’t. Why is that? St. Thomas says, “The temptation which comes from the enemy takes the form of a suggestion… Now a suggestion cannot be made to everybody in the same way; it must arise from those things towards which each one has an inclination.” This explains why Christ is tempted with different things even though he still receives the same three levels of temptation, viz. the temptation of the flesh, vainglory, and the extreme height of pride. So, it is fairly clear how then Christ overturns and counteracts the sin of Adam. Let’s turn back to the Responsorial from last Sunday and examine it in light of everything that we have discussed to this point. I feel that this Psalm is going to be our best way to understand a more practical approach to these readings and how they pertain to our personal lenten journey.

Psalm 51 which was the Responsorial Psalm, without the Response, goes like this:

I can’t even begin to dissect this psalm in its entirety. We’d be here for another couple weeks. I want to point out several elements, and then, I want to focus on an essential part. So, first, the elements.

I want you to go back through the psalm and read it again, this time keep in mind the baptismal imagery. Remember that baptism means washing.

Now, go back through it and read it again, this time keep in mind Adam’s sin, which is for us original sin. A sin that stains us from the moment of our conception. Note also, that Adam’s sin desired to know wisdom. Remember what we discussed about the separation of the Spirit from Adam. Remember that after Adam sinned he was sent into exile, sent into the wilderness.

Now, go back and read it again, this time keep in mind Christ. Remember what Christ offers us, what Christ does for us. Read David’s words as Christ’s prayer in the desert, in the wilderness, on behalf of Israel and, in parts, Himself, e.g. “I will teach transgressors Your ways.”

Good. I hope you got a lot out of that. I did. Now, I want to focus on one specific part. Hopefully this brings it all home. Let’s focus on vv.16-19–Sacrifice. David says that if God wanted a sacrifice, he would give it, but that’s not what He wants. God doesn’t want a burnt offering. What David is saying here is that God doesn’t want the Temple ritual. Why? Why doesn’t God want the Temple sacrifice? Wasn’t it God who gave the rites of the Temple to Israel? Yes, God gave the rites, but what God wants to be offered isn’t a dead cow. God wants us to offer ourselves. He wants us to die. Listen, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit.” God wants us to offer our spirit back to him, especially when we’ve broken it through our sins. Remember what we said about the offering of the spirit in our first reflection. Offering the spirit is death, particularly death to self.

How do we get there? How do we approach our death? How do we approach the celebration of Christ’s death? We have to learn how to die. How did Christ do it? He accepted His humanity, He refused to act as God for vain purposes and refused contempt for His Father. He acted out of OBEDIENCE. He counteracted the sin of Adam. How? Adam desired food; Christ refused food. Adam desired wisdom for is own vainglory; Christ refused vainglory. Adam put God in contempt in the height of his own pride; Christ refused to put God in contempt.

When we deny ourselves food, we counteract the lust of the flesh, i.e., the desire to satisfy our corporeal nature. It strengthens our spiritual identity. When we give alms, we deny ourselves our own vainglory, i.e., the desire to relish our own status or capabilities. When we turn to God in prayer, we humble ourselves and submit ourselves to God, i.e., we refuse the height of pride. The three pillars of Lent are ways for us to participate in the very life of Christ as preparation for our own self-offering.

There are a million more things that we could say, and that I’d like to address on this reading, but we exhausted our time and word limit. So, maybe we can revisit some of these themes next year. I hope you enjoyed this series as much as I have.

Let us pray: Deign to shed upon me the rays of Thy infinite brightness, and remove far from me the two-fold darkness in which I was born, namely sin and ignorance. Amen.