Your next fast.

Weeks ago I casually mentioned to a coworker that Mardi Gras (also known as Shrove Tuesday, the day before Lent begins) was next week, and of course Ash Wednesday is the next day. His eyes grew wide: “Lent already? I don’t even know what I’m giving up!”

He’s Catholic, so he always participates in Catholic-style Lenten fasting: No meat but seafood, no alcohol, plus one extra thing he’s gotta go without until Easter. (Plus his bishop gives him an exception for St. Patrick’s Day. He’s not Irish, but he still wants a Guinness.) He was stunned some years ago when I informed him Sundays are an exception to Lent—he wouldn’t believe me till he double-checked with his priest, who confirmed it’s true, but warned him, “Don’t go nuts with this knowledge”—don’t binge to make up for the days you abstained. He advised it’s probably a good idea to continue abstaining, even though it’s Sunday, just to keep your momentum going. Gotta admit there’s something to that.

Of course my coworker wasn’t prepared for Lent. Many aren’t.

Now if you’re a regular at a church which has an upcoming fast, they’ll usually give you a heads-up. (At one church I went to, many, many heads-up. Pastor really wanted all of us to participate. Misery loves company, I joked.) On the other hand if you’re not regular at all—if you’re a once-a-month attendee, or only do the holidays—they won’t get a chance to warn you, so you gotta mark your calendar. Which is tricky with “moving fasts” like Lent, ’cause it’s the 40 days (plus six Sundays) before Easter, and Easter moves all over the calendar, and if you can’t keep tabs on when Easter is, good luck with Ash Wednesday. It’s gonna blindside you like it did my coworker.

And you’ll notice for many people, when they’re not mentally prepared for an unexpected situation, they just won’t do it. They’re not the “fight” or “flight” type; they’re the “freeze” type, and just shut down. Drop a last-minute dinner party on them, and nope, they’re not going: “Oh, but I was planning to binge-watch [NETFLIX SHOW THEY’VE BEEN PROCRASTINATING THE LAST SIX YEARS, AND HONESTLY WEREN’T PLANNING TO WATCH TONIGHT, BUT HERE’S AS GOOD AN EXCUSE AS ANY TO START], and I’m in my sweatpants already, and… yeah, I’m gonna pass.” You could already tell they were gonna pass from the panicked look on their face.

It’s hardly a ne phenomenon. I imagine the people in Jesus’s Dinner Party Story, who likewise came up with pathetic excuses for why they weren’t coming, had a similar freaked-out look on their faces: “Oh I’m so not in the mood for this.” But then again, they weren’t in the mood for this when they got their first invitation.

The same is true for most people who know a fast, any kind of fast, is coming. They don’t wanna. So when you spring a fast upon them—“We have a major problem and we need you to pray about it, and if you can, maybe you could fast too?”—they’re gonna scramble for any reason to do no such thing. They’ll pray; that’s not the problem. They’re not gonna fast. They were really looking forward to eating that lasagna in the freezer. Yeah, it’s been there for the past six months, but suddenly, inexplicably, they have a raging desire for lasagna.

If any of this sounds like you: It sounds like me too. So here’s a wild thought: What if we don’t approach fasting with a bad attitude?

Jesus’s pre-trial trial before Annas.

John 18.12-14, 19-24.

In the synoptic gospels, right after Jesus’s arrest, the Judean police and their posse took Jesus to the head priest’s house. But in John they didn’t. John’s the only gospel in which they first take a little side trip… to the former head priest’s house. That’d be Khánan bar Seth, whom historical records call Ananus, and whom the KJV calls Annas. John relates Simon Peter also denounced Jesus in Annas’s courtyard.

Backstory time. Shortly after the time of the Maccabees, the head priests became the kings of Judea. And Israelis called their kings Messiah. (Yep, that title.) The priests’ dynasty ended with Herod 1, who took the throne from his father-in-law Antigonus Mattathias in 37BC. Herod became king, but because he was Edomite not Aaronite, he couldn’t be head priest; only descendants of Aaron could be head priest, y’know. Lv 6.22 So Herod claimed the right to appoint the head priests. In fact he appointed a bunch of head priests, ’cause he kept firing them when they wouldn’t do as he wished.

Once the Romans took Judea from the Herods, they did the same thing. Annas was the 11th appointed head priest since Herod took over. (He’s actually the ninth guy to hold the job. Some previous head priests had non-consecutive terms.) Annas was appointed by the Syrian legate Publius Sulpicius Quirinius in the year 6, and stayed in office till the year 15. He’s a descendant of King John Hyrcanus, and while he was still in the royal family, he wasn’t actually a contender for the throne.

Bible commentators aren’t always aware Herod and the Romans kept swapping out head priests, and assume Annas was the hereditary head priest, like all the head priests before Herod. So they aren’t so surprised when Annas’s five sons, son-in-law, and grandson become head priest after him: Isn’t it supposed to be a hereditary job? And yeah, originally it was… but in Jesus’s time it wasn’t, and hadn’t been for decades. So the fact Annas managed to keep his family in power for nearly 60 years is mighty impressive.

Annas’s successors include:

• Eleazar, his son (16-17CE)
• Joseph bar Caiaphas, his son-in-law (18-36)
• Jonathan, his son (36-37)
• Theophilus, his son (37-41)
• Matthias, his son (43)
• Jonathan again (44)
• Annas 2, his son (63)
• Mattathias, his grandson (65-66)

Annas wasn’t the only guy with a political dynasty though. Four sons and a grandson of Boethus, another descendant of Aaron, were also head priest. Including Joazar bar Boethus, Annas’s direct predecessor.

Since Annas’s family kept holding the office of head priest, clearly Annas had a lot of influence in Judea. The Judeans certainly thought so. Not for nothing do two of the gospels treat Annas kinda like he’s still head priest. John straight-up calls him the head priest in verse 19 of today’s passage, and Luke also calls him the head priest when he’s nailing down the time John the baptist’s ministry began:

Luke 3.2 KJV

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

The bible indicates there’s only one head priest (and currently it’s Jesus, He 3.1) but Annas wielded enough power behind the scenes that everyone basically acknowledged yeah, Annas was still head priest. Any time one of his kids was head priest, he was back in power, and even though he didn’t personally wear the ephod and go into the Holiest Place during Yom Kippur, functionally he was head priest too.

And even though the head priest wasn’t king anymore, he was still functionally Judea’s head of state. The Roman emperors were off in Rome having orgies (no seriously; Cæsar Tiberias was a big orgy guy), and the Roman procurators only worried about keeping down insurrections. So the actual running of Judea was left to the Judean senate, and the head priest was the senate president. He ran the country. Not necessarily well, nor with the best interests of Judeans in mind: He wanted to keep the Romans from clamping down on his his nation’s freedoms, remain in power, and feather his own nest.

So if Jesus is Messiah, this was an utter threat to his power. So naturally Annas wanted to check out this reported Messiah for himself. After all, what if he was Messiah? What if he actually, suddenly called down 12 legions of angels Mt 26.53 and took his kingdom by force? Annas may have already made up his mind about Jesus, but he wasn’t stupid; he still needed to meet the man.

Judas Iscariot turns Jesus in.

Mark 14.42-46, Matthew 26.46-50,
Luke 22.47-48, John 18.1-3.

In St. John Paul’s list of stations of the cross, the second station combines Judas Iscariot’s betrayal and Jesus the Nazrene’s arrest. ’Cause they happened simultaneously—they, and Simon Peter slashing one of the head priest’s slaves. There’s a lot to unpack there, which is why I want to look at them separately. Getting betrayed and getting arrested, fr’instance: That’s two different kinds of suffering. Psychological and physical.

Right after Jesus prayed in Gethsemane (the first station), this happened:

Mark 14.42-46 KWL

42“Get up so we can go:

Here comes the one who turns me in.”

43Next, while Jesus is still speaking,

Judas Iscariot approaches the Twelve.

With him, a crowd with machetes and sticks,

coming from the head priests, scribes, and elders.

44The one who turns Jesus in

had given the crowd a signal,

saying, “Whomever I might show affection to, is him.

Grab him and take him away carefully.”

45Next, coming to Jesus, he tells him, “Rabbi!”

and kisses him hello.

46So the crowd lays their hands on Jesus

and arrests him.

Matthew 26.46-50 KWL

46Get up so we can go:

Here comes the one who sold me out.”

47While Jesus is still speaking, look:

Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, comes.

With him is a great crowd with machetes and sticks,

coming from the head priests, elders, and people.

48The one who turns Jesus in gives them a sign,

saying, “Whomever I might show affection to, is him. Grab him.”

49Immediately coming to Jesus, he says, “Hello, rabbi!”

and kisses him hello.

50Jesus tells Judas, “Brother, why have you come?”

Then the approaching mob throws their hands on Jesus

and seizes him.

Luke 22.47-48 KWL

47While Jesus is still speaking, look: A crowd.

And the one called Judas, one of the Twelve, leading them.

He goes to Jesus to kiss him hello,

48and Jesus tells him, “Judas,

to kiss the Son of Man,

you turn him in.”

John 18.1-3 KWL

1When Jesus says this,

he with his students go over the Kidron ravine,

where there’s a garden.

He and his students enter it.

2 Judas Iscariot, who was turning him in,

knew of the place,

because Jesus often gathers with his students there.

3 So Judas, bringing 200 men,

plus servants of the head priests and Pharisees,

comes there with torches, lamps, and arms.

The Lᴏʀᴅ created land animals.

Genesis 1.24-25.

When I’ve taught on Genesis 1 before, it created major problems with my listeners—who were raised to be young-earth creationists. There’s a lot of baggage which comes with that worldview. I grew up in it, so I know where they’re coming from.

Young-earthers are taught the earth is only 60 centuries old, give or take a few years. This, despite the evidence of our eyes and ears which tell us the earth and our universe is way older than that. Our telescopes detect light from galaxies 280 million light-years away, which means God created ’em at least 280 million years ago. That, or he deceptively made it appear the universe is more than 280 million years old when it’s not—and why would he do so? God is not a deceiver. Suggesting he is, is blasphemy.

But young-earthers are told the earth has to only be 60 centuries old; it’s the most accurate, most literal interpretation of Genesis. So you must believe it—or you don’t legitimately believe the bible. And that’s a slippery slope: It’d mean you don’t believe what the bible records about Jesus. And therefore don’t believe in Jesus. And therefore are probably going to hell.

Threatening skeptics with hell is mighty cult-like behavior. Yet it’s mighty common—and a big reason young-earth creationism persists in Evangelical Christianity as much as it does. We got a lot of Christians who think young-earth creationism is a make-or-break doctrine. And when I dare to say not only is it not, but then show you how Genesis 1 really can’t be treated as literal, and wasn’t really meant to be… well, some young-earthers get mighty freaked out by this. I’m triggering a faith crisis in ’em.

If that’s you, please believe I don’t mean for you to be miserable. I’m actually hoping you’ll be thrilled to know it’s not just okay to believe in both Jesus and science; you should believe in both Jesus and science. Too many Evangelicals think it’s simply impossible. So much so, some of ’em think they have to choose one or the other, and either choose to fight science, or choose to quit Jesus so they can study science. It’s a false dilemma, and you can reject it! Please do.

Okay, enough housekeeping. Back to Genesis 1.

I’ll say it again: Genesis wasn’t written to teach science. It supports neither evolution nor young-earth creationism. That’s a debate which started in the mid-1700s. (It actually predates Charles Darwin and On the Origin of Species. Darwin simply gave an explanation for why evolution might work, i.e. natural selection.) So if you see verses which appear to support evolution from a common ancestor, like the passage about fish and birds, or today’s passage about land animals: No it doesn’t. The writer of Genesis wasn’t trying to explain what specifically happened; only that ancient middle eastern pagans got it wrong. Their myths claim their gods conquered the universe, and that’s why they rule it. Genesis states the LORD created it, and everything in it, and that’s why he rules it.

He created the fish and birds on day five; he created the land animals, including humans, on day six. I’ll get to the humans next time. Today, the animals.

Genesis 1.24-25 KWL

24God said, “Land: Bring forth living soul by its species.

Beast and creeper and life in the land, by their¹ species.”

It was so.

25God created the life in the land by its species,

the beast by its species,

and every creeper in the ground by its species.

God saw how good it was.

Strong numbers. Or Strong’s numbers. Whichever.

From time to time I refer to Strong numbers or Strong’s numbers. I suppose I need to explain what they are lest people get the idea I’m introducing them to numerology.

A concordance is a list of every single word in a book. In the past, people made concordances for the bible, and you could use them as kind of a bible index. In those pre-internet days, if you remembered there’s a verse about “the meek shall inherit the earth,” but couldn’t remember it’s in the beatitudes, couldn’t remember where it is, and obviously couldn’t ask Siri or Google where it was, you’d go to your bookshelf and pull out that big, massive, 20-pound concordance, flip to “meek,” and find out where it’s hiding.

Seems it appears 17 times in the King James Version:

VERSE	TEXT	NO.
Nu 12.3	the man Moses was very m., above all the men	H 6035
Ps 22.26	The m. shall eat and be satisfied	H 6035
Ps 25.9	The m. shall he guide in judgment	H 6035
Ps 25.9	and the m. shall he teach his way.	H 6035
Ps 37.11	But the m. shall inherit the earth	H 6035
Ps 76.9	to save all the m. of the earth.	H 6035
Ps 147.6	The LORD lifteth up the m.	H 6035
Ps 149.4	he will beautify the m. with salvation	H 6035
Is 11.4	reprove with equity for the m. of the earth	H 6035
Is 29.19	The m. also shall increase their joy	H 6035
Is 61.1	to preach good tidings unto the m.	H 6035
Am 2.7	and turn aside the way of the m.	H 6035
Zp 2.3	Seek ye the LORD, all ye m. of the earth	H 6035
Mt 5.5	Blessed are the m.: for they shall inherit	G 4239
Mt 11.29	for I am m. and lowly in heart	G 4235
Mt 21.5	Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, m.	G 4239
1Pe 3.4	even the ornament of a m. and quiet spirit	G 4239

So check it out: The meek inheriting the earth actually comes up twice. In Psalm 37.11, and in Christ Jesus’s “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Mt 5.5

Some bibles have a mini-concordance in the back, to be used as just this sort of index. They don’t include every word. Really, not even an exhaustive concordance does: There are 64,040 instances of “the” in the KJV. (More instances of “the” than there are verses.) But when people are trying to track down a verse, seldom are they looking for the word “the.” Or “but,” or “and,” or “he,” or other all-too-common words.

Anyway. Dr. James Strong wasn’t the first guy to produce an exhaustive concordance of the KJV, but his was powerfully useful for one reason: His numbers. When you looked up any word in his 1890 concordance, you’d find he provided a number. In the back of the book are his Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament, and Greek Dictionary of the New Testament. Don’t even have to know the Hebrew or Greek alphabets: You look up the word by its number, and there you go: It’s the proper original-language word behind the KJV’s translation.

Wanna know the original word for “ass” in 2 Peter 2.16? Strong’s concordance will point you to number 5268, and once you look up that number in the Greek dictionary, you find this:

5268. ὑποζύγιον hupozugion, hoop-od-zoog'-ee-on; neuter of a compound of 5259 and 2218; an animal under the yoke (draught-beast), i.e. (specially), a donkey: ass.

Nice, huh? Wanna know the original word for “buttocks” in Isaiah 20.4?

8357. שֵׁתָה shethah, shay-thaw'; from 7896; the seat (of the person):—buttock.

Yes, I’m twelve.

Juvenile words aside, the number idea was just plain brilliant. Yeah, Strong could’ve only given people the original-language word, then turned ’em loose to fumble around for it. But I know way too many people who are totally wierded out by foreign languages. Even Spanish scares ’em. Throw a foreign alphabet in there and they’re wholly lost—how are they to know Hebrew alphabetical order? (Yeah, Psalm 119. But still.) Anyway, anybody can look up a number. So instead of trying to figure out how on earth you’re gonna find ὑποζύγιον or שֵׁתָה in the bible, you look up the numbers 5268 and 8357. Simple.

Nope, Strong’s system isn’t perfect. Some of the numbers are redundant: Different forms of the same word sometimes got different numbers. Syriac words (which Strong called “Chaldee”) got mixed up with the Hebrew words, and people can mix up the Hebrew definition with the Syriac definitions and get some strange interpretations. Pronunciation is way off ’cause it’s not taken from native speakers, who’d pronounce ὑποζύγιον as i.poʊ'dzi.gi.oʊn not hup.ɑd'zug.i.ɑn. And if you wanna use Strong’s Greek dictionary to look up words from the Septuagint, he didn’t write it for the Septuagint, so good luck. (For that you’ll need a Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon… and maybe a semester of ancient Greek.

But the popularity and utility of Strong’s concordance means you’ll find Strong numbers in a whole lot of reference materials.

St. Patrick’s Confession.

Pádraig of Ireland, whom we know as St. Patrick or St. Paddy, died 17 March 493. Old Christian custom is to celebrate saints’ days not on their birthday (which sometimes even they didn’t know), but on the day they died and went to paradise. So, happy St. Patrick’s Day.

In the United States, Irish Americans (and pretty much everyone else, ’cause the more the merrier) treat the day as a celebration of Irish culture. Thing is, Americans know bupkis about actual Irish culture. We barely know the difference between an Irish, Scots, or Yorkshire accent. What we do know is Guinness and Jameson—though we’ll settle for anything alcoholic, including beer filled with green food coloring. Me, I used to love McDonald’s “shamrock shakes,” though the last time I had one I found it way too sweet to enjoy. (It’s because they take an already-sugary vanilla shake, then add sugary green mint stuff.) Oreos help, but I still much prefer adding mint and vanilla to a Starbucks Frappuccino.

Most American customs consist of drinking, eating stereotypical Irish food like corned beef and potatoes, parades in which the religious participants express varying degrees of outrage at all the irreligious participants, and all sorts of Irish distortions—some of ’em unknowingly offensive or racist. British Americans used to treat Irish Americans like crap, bringing over their prejudices from the old country, and some of that hatred is still around. I have a few Irish ancestors myself (although way more of ’em are German, Dutch, and Scots), so I’ve not experienced that prejudice firsthand. But I have witnessed it.

Oh, and wearing green. American custom is to wear green, lest someone pinch you. But the color actually comes from the political struggle between Protestant monarchists and Catholic socialists. Much like Americans use red and blue to signify party affiliation, the Irish use green and orange. And whenever we Americans wear green, we unwittingly declare we’re in favor of socialism and Catholicism. Now, as Americans you would think this is because we’re anti-monarchy (even though some Americans are perfectly happy to anoint their favorite candidate as king), but really it’s because we don’t know any better and the socialists were very successful in publicizing green. If I gotta pick a color though, it’d be orange; I’m Protestant. No I’m not monarchist; no I have nothing against my Roman Catholic sisters and brothers! Like I said it’s if I gotta pick a color. I risk getting pinched over it, but I still prefer an informed choice over unthinkingly following the crowd.

If you’re Catholic, six years out of seven, St. Patrick’s Day custom is to beg your local bishop for a day off from Lenten fasting. Since you don’t fast on Sunday, back in 2024 you automatically had a day off from Lent. But other years, saint’s days aren’t automatically feast days, so you just gotta hope your bishop hasn’t had it up to here with all the Catholics-in-name-only who are gonna take the day off regardless, and misbehave.

In any event, for Americans our holidays aren’t really about serious remembrance, but having a good time. Which really annoys our veterans every Veterans Day. Now imagine how Patrick feels, with people celebrating his day by puking into moonroofs.

The very, very little which popular culture knows about Patrick, is…

• He drove snakes out of Ireland. (He actually didn’t.)
• He liked to use shamrocks to explain trinity. (Badly.)
• He once turned his walking stick into a tree. (Actually, people don’t know that story so well.)
• He’s “a Catholic saint.” (Patrick predates Roman Catholicism by about 250 years, which is why Patrick’s also a saint in the Orthodox Church, same as St. Nicholas.)

And that’s about it. Some stories about Patrick are also borrowed from the life of Bishop Palladius—whom the bishop of Rome, Celestine 1, sent to evangelize Ireland a few decades before Patrick came to Ireland. So those aren’t legit Patrick stories. People tell ’em anyway.

When in doubt, go to the historical sources. So below, I’ve provided the Confession of St. Patrick, his testimony. Comes from James O’Leary’s translation. Scripture references and minor edits were added by me.

Could’ve called down the angels.

Matthew 26.52-54.

When Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane on the morning of 3 April 33, the knee-jerk response of his students, same as every human, is fight or flight. Some fled; some fought.

And it was really stupid of them to fight. You realize Jesus’s Twelve (minus Judas Iscariot of course) consisted of 11 teenagers with no self-defense training, opposing the temple police accompanied by a mob. Definitely outnumbered. But you know there’s always gonna be a faction of true believers who think, “Numbers don’t matter! Gideon routed the Midianite and Amalekite armies with only 300 men. Jg 7 Samson personally slaughtered a thousand people with a jawbone. Jg 15.16 God can likewise supernaturally empower me to fight any number of people.”

Okay yes, God can do and empower anything he wants. But does he want to empower us to singlehandedly fight a mob? Did he state anything in advance about this sort of thing, like he’d said to Gideon and Samson? Or have we arrogantly presumed our cause is righteous, and right makes might?—because unless God intervenes, it really doesn’t, and if God hasn’t foresaid he’s gonna intervene, likely he won’t.

Had God foresaid he’d intervene in Jesus’s arrest? Or had Jesus said just the opposite, multiple times, Mk 8.31, 10.32-34 and the students were in denial? That second one. Jesus didn’t say, “We’ll go to Jerusalem and we’ll be just fine.” God hadn’t told anyone, “A mob will appear, but fight them and you’ll win.” Jesus warned them: He’s getting arrested. There’ll be no supernatural defeat of any mob. Neither Jesus’s kids will hold them back, nor 10,000 angels pouring from the black sky to smite every sinner on the ground. Jesus won’t fight back. He’s gonna surrender. On purpose.

And in so doing win, and win big.

But Christians still don’t understand this strategy. We still keep adopting the tactic to fight back hard.

Although the whole angels-pouring-from-the-sky idea? It actually was an option. And now I’ll quote that passage. It happens right after a violent follower lops off the ear of the head priest‘s slave. Matthew never identifies the guy (John does), nor points out Jesus immediately cured him (Luke does), but only records Jesus’s rebuke.

Matthew 26.52-54 KWL

52Then Jesus tells him, “Put your¹ machete back in its place!

For everyone who chooses arms

will be destroyed by arms.

53Or do you¹ think I can’t call out to my Father,

and he will give me, right now,

more than 12 legions of angels?

54But then how might the scriptures be fulfilled?

So this has to happen.”

I wanna zero in on this Matthew statement because it reminds us how utterly in control Jesus is: At any point of Good Friday he could’ve stopped it. Any point.