The Philosophy of Jesus Christ - restoring Christian philosophy to its
biblical roots, with Jesus Christ, Wisdom Incarnate, as the focal point. The
Fathers of the Church rightly recognised the profound influence of Hebrew
wisdom, the Bible, upon the Greco-Roman world. As ‘Salvation is of the Jews’,
so is Wisdom. “Jesus appealed to God’s previous revelation in the Hebrew
Scriptures (Matt. 5:17–19; John 10:31) and issued authoritative revelations of
His own as God Incarnate”. … Jesus reasoned carefully about the things that
matter most — a handy definition of philosophy. His teachings, in fact, cover
the basic topics of philosophy. …. “As an apologist for God’s truth, He
defended the truth of the Hebrew Scriptures as well as His own teachings and
actions” (Fr. Anthony Zimmerman).
Introduction
The
consideration of Jesus Christ as a philosopher is not entirely new. Had not St.
Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (ca. 1217-1274), for one, written of Him in this
light, referring to Jesus Christ as “the Metaphysician par excellence”? Regarding this, we read: (http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/60/60.2/60.2.2.pdf):
Bonaventure’s
most outstanding achievement, which has been virtually overlooked, is his
development of a theological metaphysics. As Zachary Hayes has shown, Bonaventure’s
theology of the Word enabled him to concentrate on the Word of God as the
principle of universal intelligibility.(4) Identifying metaphysics as the task
of unifying all of finite reality to one first principle who is origin, exemplar
and final end, Bonaventure perceived the quest of the philosopher to be fulfilled
when the exemplar of all else is identified with the one divine essence.(5)
For Bonaventure, the exemplar is Jesus Christ, and only in light of exemplarity
is the deepest nature of created reality unlocked for the philosopher. Without
Christian revelation the philosopher is unable to reduce reality to a first
principle.
[End
of quote]
However,
we wrongly tend to look to the pagan Ionian and mainland Greeks for the beginnings
of philosophy.
And
so there appear to be few detailed analyses of Jesus Christ as a philosopher.
In
recent times, however, professor Peter Kreeft has written a book entitled:
About
this book we read at http://www.staugustine.net/our-books/books/the-philosophy-of-jesus/
Amazingly,
no one ever seems to have looked at Jesus as a philosopher, or his teaching as
philosophy. Yet no one in history has ever had a more radically new philosophy,
or made more of a difference to philosophy, than Jesus. He divided all human
history into two, into "B.C." and "A.D."; and the history
of philosophy is crucial to human history, since philosophy is crucial to man;
so how could He not also divide philosophy?
[End
of quote]
In
the following review of professor Kreeft’s book, we read
The Philosophy of Jesus by Peter Kreeft is a short, pocket-sized book of just 150
pages. From the title one might wonder what sort of philosophy book this might
be. The author explains who this book is for on the first page:
“It is for both Christians and non-Christians. It’s designed to show Christians a new dimension of Jesus: Jesus the philosopher. And it’s designed to show non-Christians a new dimension of philosophy, a new philosophy and a new philosopher. It’s not designed to convert them.” (1)
Kreeft introduces the book further by answering the question Why is Jesus a philosopher? He states that on one level, of course Jesus was not a philosopher in the traditional sense. But he contends that Jesus was a philosopher in another sense that is more meaningful. But “...this book is not so much about Jesus’ philosophical style or method or ‘cast of mind’ but about his philosophical substance, his philosophical answers, his philosophy.” (5) As for the title: “The title of this book is appropriate because Jesus is more philosophical than any philosopher, not less.” (48)
The goal of the book is to look at how Jesus answers the four great philosophical questions. “They are the questions about being, truth, self, and goodness.” (6) These are questions of metaphysics, epistemology, philosophical anthropology, and ethics. But if these are the great philosophical questions throughout history, why haven’t we found adequate answers? Kreeft contends that the Christian answer is this: “because the only adequate answer to all four great philosophical questions is Christ.” (9) And so begins a book which is focused not on philosophy, but one that centers and focuses on the person of Jesus Christ, while showing how he is the answer to the great philosophical questions.
Kreeft first engages with Jesus’ metaphysics. In particular, he points out that Jesus’ metaphysic was undeniably Jewish. And this question of the nature of ultimate reality is answered in how God revealed Himself -- as the Ultimate Reality -- the “I AM.” But this metaphysic also is revealed in Jesus’ unique name for God as Father. Kreeft goes on to show how love and morality and everything flows from the ultimate reality of who God is.
The author then looks at the question of epistemology. Kreeft shows how Jesus answers this question:
Jesus’
answer to the first question, the question of being, was Himself. It was not to
point but to be, to be ‘I AM.’ So His answer to the second question, the
question of truth, is also not to point to anything else as the truth but
simply to be Himself the truth: ‘I AM the truth.’ (47)
Again, the
reader will find that this is not a book glorifying philosophy, but showing how
all things point to Christ: “Everything in the universe and everything in the
Bible is a finger pointing to Him. He is the end of epistemology.” (66)
Next Kreeft explores the anthropology of Jesus, noting that Christ is the key to anthropology. Jesus is the only way for man to really know himself. Even Kreeft’s writing style weaves word pictures together in such a way as to point to the beauty, artistry, and glory of Christ. In addition, the content itself encompasses both the philosophical questions and the scriptural answers.
In looking at Jesus’ ethics, Kreeft says “There are really three moral questions, three basic parts to morality: how should we relate to each other, to ourselves, and to God?” (95) Kreeft’s writing prowess shines through as he reflects on Christ as the answer to ethics:
“He is the world’s greatest moral teacher, but He is more than
that. He is the world’s most perfect moral example, but He is more than that.
He is the world’s greatest prophet, but He is more than that. He is more than
one who taught goodness and lived goodness and demanded goodness. He is
goodness.” (98)
What the
reader finds in The Philosophy of Jesus is a powerful and even worshipful look at the person of Jesus
Christ. The author, though academic, is not writing an academic book; though a
philosopher, he has not written a philosophy book. This is a profound look at
Christ as the answer to life’s great questions:
“Philosophers seek wisdom. Christ is wisdom. Therefore
Christ is the fulfillment of philosophy. Moralists seek righteousness. Christ is
righteousness. Therefore Christ is the fulfillment of morality.” (114-115)
The
conclusion: “The answer is that there is only one hope, for societies as well
as souls: ‘What must I do to be saved?’ ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and
you shall be saved.’ (Acts 11:14)” (149)
[End of quotes]
Returning
to http://www.staugustine.net/our-books/books/the-philosophy-of-jesus/ we
read more about professor Kreeft’s book, including an outline of its contents:
This book (1) looks at Jesus as a
complete human being (as well as divine), therefore also as a philosopher; (2)
looks at philosophy as Jesus' pre-modern contemporaries did, as a wisdom, a
world-view, and a way of life rather than as a super-science (Descartes, Hegel)
or as a servant-science (Hobbes, Hume); and (3) looks at philosophy in light of
Jesus rather than at Jesus in light of philosophy. It explores the consequences
of Etienne Gilson's point that when St. John brought Christianity and Greek
philosophy into contact and identified the Messiah the Jews had most deeply
sought with the logos that the Greeks had most deeply sought, nothing happened
to Christ but something happened to the logos.
This book explores the most radical revolution in the history of philosophy, the differences Jesus made to metaphysics (the philosophy of being), to epistemology (the philosophy of knowing), to anthropology (the philosophy of man), and to philosophical ethics and politics.
And, besides, it has the greatest ending of any philosophy book in a century.
Contents
Introduction 1: Who Is It For?
Introduction 2: How Is Jesus a Philosopher?
Introduction 3: What Are the Four Great Questions of Philosophy?
I. Jesus’ Metaphysics (What is real?)
* Jesus’ Jewish Metaphysics
* Jesus’ New Name for God
* The Metaphysics of Love
* The Moral Consequences of Metaphysics
* Sanctity as the Key to Ontology
* The Metaphysics of “I AM”
II. Jesus’ Epistemology (How do we know what is real?)
III. Jesus’ Anthropology (Who are we who know what is real?)
IV. Jesus’ Ethics (What should we be to be more real?)
* Christian Personalism: Seeing “Jesus
only”
* Jesus and Legalism
* Jesus and Relativism
* Jesus and the Secret of Moral Success
* Jesus and Sex
* Jesus and Social Ethics: Solidarity
* Jesus and Politics: Is He Left or
Right?
Conclusion
Index
[End of quote]
This
is indeed a big and necessary step in the right direction. Much more needs to be
written. Of course it is difficult to impossible for a western educated scholar
to put on an ancient Jewish mind. So the work is never going to be perfect.
Hence, Romans 11:24: “For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive
tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much
more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive
tree”.
Thus
it is open to criticisms such as this one: “Jesus as a Jewish philosopher” by Matthew
Del Nevo An appraisal of Peter Kreeft The Philosophy of Jesus (St. Augustine’s Press,
2007)” (http://philosophos.org/philosophy_article_152.html):
This is a popularly written book about the philosophy of Jesus rather
than the Jesus of philosophy — at least that is the intention. The book scopes
the philosophy of Jesus in terms of the primary questions of ontology,
epistemology, anthropology and ethics, respectively: What is being? What can I
know? Who is man? What ought I to do? The style is very direct, and what is
lost in subtlety is gained in clarity. The book gets off to a good start but
increasingly confuses the philosophy of Jesus with the theology of the Catholic
Church as represented by recent official documentation. The book is divided
into four sections aligned with the four prime questions. There is a subject
index and a scriptural index.
So what does Kreeft make of Jesus' philosophy?
First of all Kreeft makes it clear that he does not occupy that
ostensibly neutral or supposedly objective position struck up by many in
philosophy of religions discourse. Kreeft's presumption in writing about Jesus'
philosophy from a Christian point of view is not apologetic or polemical,
rather he understands, rightly in this reader's view, that Jesus' teaching and
person (like Socrates') present matters of intellectual substance that have to
be engaged philosophically if they are to be engaged properly. He believes that
Jesus' philosophy is not only of historical philosophical importance in the
history of ideas, but still has a critical relevancy today. As a Christian he
is in a good position to expound this, just as someone who knows the Greek is
in a better position to expound Plato.
On Jesus' metaphysics or ontology in Chapter 1 Kreeft rightly
accentuates its Jewishness and in this regard the uniqueness of the Jewish take
on reality in which God, world and humankind are seen as ontologically other
and not merged, submerged or seen as intrinsic to one another. It is a
philosophy of otherness and difference. Kreeft could have been more definite
about this point. The threefold difference of God, world and humankind
demarcates Jewish reality from pagan reality which does not mark the
ontological otherness of these three so absolutely, if at all. The Jewish take
on reality is different from that of other religions and non-religions
(pantheism, panentheism, henotheism, ontologism, atheism, prophetism etc.), and
Kreeft touches on this.
Kreeft tends to describe Jesus' metaphysics theologically rather than
out of the Jewish world of Jesus. Kreeft speaks of a metaphysics of love, but
this does not capture the links back, in rabbinic thought, between God, world
and humankind which can be encapsulated by naming Creation, Revelation and
Redemption, as Rosenzweig has famously put it: Jesus has both a teaching on
these links back and a personal stance that is re-creative, redemptive and
revelatory. It is in this kind of metaphysical context that Jesus speaks of
love. Kreeft argues his case for Jesus' metaphysics of love from the Name of
God, but he is incorrect in saying that Jesus calling God 'abba' (father, papa)
was revolutionary. It is not in the Hebrew Scriptures as such, although the
Fatherhood of God is, but speaking to God familiarly as abba was common in
rabbinic tradition. What is revolutionary about Jesus' philosophy is that he
said you did not have to be Jewish to speak to God like this, or even
religious!
Kreeft rightly asserts that everything else follows from Jesus'
metaphysics. In epistemology, what we must know is ourselves, the world and
God. There are degrees of knowledge and the key is wisdom. Again Jesus not only
taught in the Jewish wisdom tradition but personified it. As Kierkegaard wrote
in Practice in Christianity, 'the only explanation of truth is to be
it.' Jesus' philosophy is in that sense 'existential'. Our knowledge will
increase with our sanctification of the Name of God, and of the world and of ourselves.
Kreeft rightly refers to prayer as an important key to knowledge, allowing us
to draw close and relate to that which we need to know, rather than just to
'know about'.
Jesus' anthropology revolves around the imago Dei, the
instruction that we are made in the image and likeness of God. Each person is
infinitely other than God, but bears God's image and likeness in one major
respect: each human person is absolutely one and only. Upon this is founded
human dignity. Jesus' anthropology is one which seeks to serve human dignity
and increase it upon the face of the earth, for God's glory.
Jesus' ethics revolves around the imitatio Dei, the imitation of
God, which in Christianity becomes the imitation of Christ. Kreeft argues that
we have to be 'little Christs', which I take it has to do with becoming all
that God has called us to be, individually and as a people of God. The idea is
that we each need to be personally responsible for our share in collective
destiny, which is with God, to 'mend the world' (tikkun olam). Jesus'
own philosophy was to do the Father's will, which he did, and which he enjoined
us to do, and in which prayer and personal wholeness is the key to knowledge
and true freedom.
In the second half of the book, in these chapters on anthropology and
ethics, Kreeft's tendency to move from the philosophy of Jesus to the theology
of the Church, becomes more pronounced. This shift will lose many readers not
predisposed in like manner to Kreeft. The problem goes back to Chapter 1 on
metaphysics which gets a little lost in a Thomistic interpretation of the
Creed, which is an anachronistic discussion. But this kind of anachronism is
stepped up in Chapter 3 on Jesus' anthropology. This chapter starts with the
idea of Jesus as perfect Man and perfect God, which is Greek philosophy, not
Jesus' philosophy. Kreeft then takes up the anthropological question in terms
of the Socratic dictum, 'know thyself'. This chapter shifts into apologetics
with a justification of Mary as the Mother of God, Catholic dogma rather than
Jesus' philosophy. Chapter 4 on Jesus' ethics also shifts over into apologetics
with an argument that ends with the assertion that, 'we are to worship the
Eucharist'; again, Catholic dogma, rather than Jesus' philosophy.
Traditionally Catholic Christians have taught that philosophy is a
'handmaid' to philosophy. This is preferable to the Protestant response which
was to try and expunge philosophy from theology, which gave them ideology. My
view, the view of most philosophers, would be that any theology is no better
than its philosophy. Traditionally Christian thought, that is, Christian
interpretation, has depended on Greek philosophy, more precisely on
combinations of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. Jesus' philosophy —
whatever it was — was Jewish, rabbinic, in the sense we read about in the
Talmud, which reflects the oral tradition of Jesus' Jewish world. Jesus'
philosophy was not Platonic or Aristotelian.
The problem for Kreeft, which his book bears out, is that philosophy for
him is by definition non-Jewish. There is a long quotation from C. S. Lewis in
the Preface to show that Jesus' style followed broadly along Aristotelian lines
as found in the Poetics and the Analytics. But Jesus' style was halakhic
and aggadic. Kreeft asserts in the Preface that it is not the style but
the substance of Jesus' philosophy that interests him, his answers.
Jewish religious philosophy has always revolved around the question, though,
not the answer; on answers it is pluralistic.
Catholicism by contrast is about answers and is autocratically assertive
about its own answers, both to its own global constituency and with regard to
other denominational points of view. Kreeft needs to cross over from a culture
of answers in which he is steeped to a culture of the question, in which Jesus
was steeped. Moreover, in achieving the relevancy of Jesus' philosophy another
bridge has to be crossed from an autocratic 'one answer fits all' culture to a
plural culture. For we live in an age of philosophies, a pluralist age in which
by definition there cannot be one overarching theological metaphysic because
that would mean one underlying dominant philosophy, which is simply not the
case in our time. Therefore we need to situate Jesus' philosophy in terms of an
age of interpretation if we are going as Kreeft intends, to gauge its enormous
transformative power.
Ultimately the lack of distinction between the philosophy of Jesus and
Catholic dogma lets the book down. Kreeft has taken the ecclesiastical future
of Jesus as the cue, rather than the Jewish background, Jesus' own world and
the greatness of rabbinic thinking in particular.
In an age of interpretation when a lot of metaphysical theology is
suspect, archaic and unengaging, the project of re-discovering Jesus'
philosophy is important as a basis for Christian self-understanding, and then
for pre-understanding in philosophical argument. Jesus' philosophy was
certainly questioning and critically formulated in a rabbinic manner and it
aimed to be foundational for the philosophical task of bringing heaven down to
earth, a prophetic task in which humanity becomes all that God meant it to be.
[End of quote]
Returning
to a theme of the Book of Hebrews, we read this inspiring piece by Fr. Zimmerman:
Christ-Pantokrator
….
Creator
by Divine Power;
Designer
by Human Intelligence
The
author of Hebrews ascribes to the God-man the creative wisdom and power of the
Son of God, without distinguishing technically between Christ's powers as
Creator and Redeemer: He is equally the reflection of the Father's glory, and
the Redeemer who cleansed us of our sins:
In times
past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the
prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir
of all things and through whom he created the universe,
who is
the refulgence of his glory, the imprint of his being, who sustains all things
by his mighty word. When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took
his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high, as far superior to the
angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. (Heb 1:1-4).
We see in
the passage that the Christ who redeemed us is also the One through whom God
created all things. He, who now reigns at the right hand of the Majesty on
high, is the same Christ through whom God created the cosmos. He is as superior
to Moses, as the "founder of the house has more honor than the house
itself" (Heb 3:3). Hebrews does not spell out in technical or theological
terms what may be the meaning of the phrase "through whom he created the
universe."
We know,
however, that only God can create, because drawing existence out of nothing
requires divine power; God cannot delegate the task of creation to any
creature. Neither would the Son of God create things through His human powers,
that being impossible. We assume therefore that the meaning of "creating
the universe in Christ," means first of all that the Son created all
things with the Father and the Spirit; and secondly that when Father, Son, and
Spirit created, they first set forth the Key to the rest of creation, namely
Christ in His human nature; and then shaped the cosmos in accord with the model
or blue print of its First Born, namely Christ. Christ in His human nature is
creation's Alpha; all other things come from God through Him. The sky would be
the roof which the God-man Christ should like to see; the earth should produce
the flowers and seeds which Joseph would name for Him; the Mother who should
bear Him and love Him should be the Woman, the co-Redemptrix, who would trample
the head of the serpent with Him. God, in carrying out creation, measured all
things to accord with the needs and plans and wisdom and will of Christ, the
God- man. This God-man was already at God's side in eternity, even though His
manifestation in time was not yet perceived by creatures who are time-bound.
We might,
therefore, distinguish the work of creation which is done by God only,
by Father, Son, and Spirit, one divine power; and the shaping of this
creation, a task in which Christ participates with His human wisdom and free
choice. And so we may dare to paraphrase John 1:3 to describe this joint
action: "All things came to be through him [through God]; and without him
[Christ nothing came to be measured and put into shape."
A passage
of Proverbs presents a magnificent description of personified Wisdom present to
God during the work of creation. We see here a vision of Christ standing at
God's side to give shape to the cosmos while God commands it into being:
When he
established the heavens I was there
when he
marked out the vault over the face of the deep;
When he
made firm the skies above,
when he
fixed fast the foundations of the earth;
When he
set for the sea its limit,
so that
the waters should not transgress his command;
Then was
I beside him as his craftsman,
and I was
his delight day by day,
Playing
before him all the while,
playing
on the surface of the earth;
and I
found delight in the sons of men (Prov 8:27-31).
Christ,
knowing that He was God's craftsman, the One who always stood by to give proper
shape to the cosmos, knew well all the secrets of creation and the deepest
yearnings of the human soul. His advice will always be best, because this
Master Architect knows the purpose of all things made. In the Gospel Christ
could only weep when Jerusalem did not take advantage of His coming (cf. Lk
20:41 ff.). It is the artist weeping when insensitive people ignore the beauty
and limpid rationality of His cosmos. The Church, on the contrary, does its
best to make up for the world's insensitivity, by recognizing Christ's unique
cosmic centrality when blessing the Easter Candle on Holy Saturday:
Christ
yesterday and today the beginning and the end Alpha and Omega all time belongs
to him and all the ages to him be glory and power through every age and ever.
Amen.
[End of
quote]
Douglas
Groothuis is yet another of the new breed, who has recognised in Jesus Christ a
Master Teacher (This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 25, # 2, 2002). For further information or to subscribe to the
Christian Research Journal go to http://www.equip.org):
Contrary to the views of critics, Jesus Christ was
a brilliant thinker, who used logical arguments to refute His critics and
establish the truth of His views. When Jesus praised the faith of children, He
was encouraging humility as a virtue, not irrational religious trust or a blind
leap of faith in the dark. Jesus deftly employed a variety of reasoning
strategies in His debates on various topics. These include escaping the horns
of a dilemma, a fortiori arguments, appeals to evidence, and reductio
ad absurdum arguments. Jesus’ use of persuasive arguments demonstrates that
He was both a philosopher and an apologist who rationally defended His
worldview in discussions with some of the best thinkers of His day. This
intellectual approach does not detract from His divine authority but enhances
it. Jesus’ high estimation of rationality and His own application of arguments
indicates that Christianity is not an anti-intellectual faith. Followers of
Jesus today, therefore, should emulate His intellectual zeal, using the same
kinds or arguments He Himself used. Jesus’ argumentative strategies have
applications to four contemporary debates: the relationship between God and
morality, the reliability of the New Testament, the resurrection of Jesus, and
ethical relativism.
WAS JESUS A PHILOSOPHER AND APOLOGIST?
I had to face the question of whether Jesus was a
philosopher and apologist head-on when I was asked to write a book on Jesus for
the Wadsworth Philosophers Series. I already knew that Jesus articulated a
developed worldview and reasoned brilliantly with His opponents. As I studied
the subject carefully, however, I came to appreciate Jesus, the philosopher,
more than ever. When Jesus defended the crucial claims of Christianity — He was
its founder, after all — He was engaging in apologetics, often with the best
minds of first-century Judaism.
Some Christians may be reluctant to label Jesus as
a philosopher or apologist because they worry that such a reference may demean
the Lord of the universe. One well-known Christian philosopher told me that
emphasizing Jesus’ reasoning abilities could take away from Jesus as a
revelator, a source of supernatural knowledge. I respect his concern but
disagree for the following reasons.
Jesus was the incarnation of the Logos — whom theologians
call the second person of the Trinity. As Christian philosopher and theologian
Carl Henry and others have emphasized, the apostle John used the term logos
to personalize the Greek view of the wisdom, logic, and rationality of the
universe.1 Our English translations say, “In the beginning was the
Word [Logos]” (John 1:1).2 Jesus embodies the rational communication
(Word) of God’s truth. He is “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). We should
expect that God Incarnate would be a wise and reasonable person, however much
He may cut against the grain of human presumption, pride, and prevarication.
Jesus, moreover, was both divine and human. As a human, Jesus reasoned with
other human beings. He did not run from a good argument on theology or ethics but
engaged His hearers brilliantly.
Jesus was not a philosopher in the sense of trying
to build a philosophical system from the finite human mind. He appealed to
God’s previous revelation in the Hebrew Scriptures (Matt. 5:17–19; John 10:31)
and issued authoritative revelations of His own as God Incarnate. On the other
hand, Jesus reasoned carefully about the things that matter most — a handy
definition of philosophy. His teachings, in fact, cover the basic topics of
philosophy.3 As an apologist for God’s truth, He defended the truth
of the Hebrew Scriptures as well as His own teachings and actions.
When we inspect Jesus’ mind in action in several
familiar stories from the Gospels, we see that His thinking was sharp, clear,
and cogent. Not only should we believe what He taught because He is our divine
Master, but through hard work, prayer, and reliance on the Holy Spirit, we
should also strive to emulate His intellectual virtues because we are called to
walk as He walked (1 John 2:6).
Presenting Jesus as a worthy thinker can be a
powerful apologetic tool to unbelievers who wrongly assume that Christian
belief is a matter of blind faith or irrational belief. If the founder of
Christianity is a great thinker, His followers should never demean the human
mind (Matt. 22:37–39; Rom. 12:1–2). In addition, Jesus’ strategies in argument
can serve as a model for our own apologetic defense of the truth and
rationality of Christianity, which I will discuss.
DID JESUS DEMEAN RATIONALITY?
Jesus engaged in extensive disputes, some quite
heated, mostly with the Jewish intellectual leaders of His day. He did not
hesitate to call into account popular opinion if it was wrong. He spoke often
and passionately about the value of truth and the dangers of error, and He
articulated arguments to support truth and oppose error.4
Jesus’ use of logic had a particular flavor to it,
notes philosopher Dallas Willard:
Jesus’ aim in utilizing logic is not to win
battles, but to achieve understanding or insight in his hearers…He presents
matters in such a way that those who wish to know can find their way to, can
come to, the appropriate conclusion as something they have discovered — whether
or not it is something they particularly care for.5
Willard also argues that a concern for logic
requires not only certain intellectual skills but also certain character
commitments regarding the importance of logic and the value of truth in one’s
life. A thoughtful person will esteem logic and argument through focused
concentration, reasoned dialogue, and a willingness to follow the truth
wherever it may lead. This mental orientation places demands on the moral life.
Besides resolution, tenacity, and courage, one must shun hypocrisy (defending
oneself against facts and logic for ulterior motives) and superficiality
(adopting opinions with a glib disregard for their logical support). Willard
takes Jesus to be the supreme model, as does Christian philosopher James Sire.6
Atheist philosopher Michael Martin, in contrast,
alleges that the Jesus of the Gospels (the reliability of which he disputes)
“does not exemplify important intellectual virtues. Both his words and his
actions seem to indicate that he does not value reason and learning.” Jesus
based “his entire ministry on faith.”7 Martin interprets Jesus’
statement about the need to become like children to enter the kingdom of heaven
(Matt. 18:3) as praising uncritical belief. Martin also charges that when Jesus
gave any reason to accept His teaching, it was either that the kingdom was at
hand or that those who believed would go to heaven but those who did not
believe would go to hell; supposedly, “no rational justification was ever given
for these claims.”8 According to Martin, for Jesus, unreasoning
faith was good; rational demonstration and criticism were wrong.
These charges against the claim that Jesus was a
philosopher who valued reasoning and held a well-developed worldview are
incriminating. The same Jesus who valued children, however, also said, “Love
the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”
(Matt. 22:37; emphasis added).
Jesus praised children for the same reasons that we
customarily praise them. We don’t view children as models because they are
irrational or immature, but because they are innocent and wholehearted in their
love, devotion, and enthusiasm for life. Children are also esteemed because
they can be sincerely humble, having not learned the pretensions of the adult
world. The story in Matthew 18 has just this favorable view of children in
mind. Jesus is asked by His disciples, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of
heaven?” After calling a child and having him stand among them, Jesus replies:
I tell you the truth, unless you change and become
like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore,
whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of
heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.
(Matt. 18:3–5)
The meaning of “become like little children” is not
“become uncritical and unthinking” (as Martin claims), but instead “become
humble.” Jesus spoke much of humility, as do the Hebrew Scriptures. He never
associated humility with stupidity, ignorance, or gullibility.9
Jesus did thank God for revealing the Gospel to the humble and not to the
supposedly wise and understanding. This, however, does not imply that
intelligence is a detriment to believing Jesus’ message but that many of the
religious leaders of the day could not grasp it, largely because it challenged
their intellectual pride (see Matt. 11:25–26).
Martin also charges that the only reasons Jesus
gave to support His teaching are that the kingdom of God is at hand and that
those who fail to believe will fail to receive the heavenly benefits accorded
to those with faith.10 Is this true?
First, Jesus often spoke about the kingdom of God
while using it as a justification for some of His teaching and preaching (Matt.
4:17). Jesus was admonishing people to reorient their lives spiritually and
morally because God was breaking into history in an unparalleled and dramatic
fashion. This is not necessarily an irrational or unfounded claim if (1) God
was acting in this manner in Jesus’ day and (2) one can find evidence for the
emergence of the kingdom, chiefly through the actions of Jesus himself.
The Gospels present the kingdom as uniquely present
in the teaching and actions of Jesus who Himself claimed that “if I drive out
demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt.
12:28). Since His audience saw Him driving out demons with singular authority,
Jesus was giving them good reason to believe His claims. He was not merely
making assertions or ungrounded threats while expecting compliance in a
childish or cowardly way.
Second, Jesus’ use of the concept of God’s judgment
or reward did not supercede or replace His use of arguments. His normal
argument form was not the following: “If you believe what I say, you will be
rewarded. If you don’t believe what I say, you will lose that reward.
Therefore, believe what I say.” When Jesus issued warnings and made promises
relating one’s conduct in this life to the afterlife (see John 3:16–18), He
spoke more as a prophet than a philosopher. Whether Jesus’ words in this matter
are trustworthy depends on His moral and spiritual authority, not on His
specific arguments at every point. If we have reason to deem Him authoritative
(as we do), however, we may rationally believe these pronouncements, just as we
believe various other authorities whom we deem trustworthy on the basis of
their credentials and track record.11
[End of quote]
The
entire article is well worth reading.
Finally,
Wayne Jackson well sums it all up with reference to Ernest Renan (https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1497-jesus-the-master-teacher):
Conclusion
The benevolent influence of Jesus’ teaching is beyond
reasonable dispute. Even the skeptical philosopher Ernest Renan (1823-92), who
opposed Christian tradition on almost all points, stated: “Jesus will ever be
the creator of the pure spirit of religion; the Sermon on the Mount will never
be surpassed” (1991, 221).
As his critics, both ancient and modern, fade into the
obscurity they so justly deserve, the Son of God, who adorned this earth with
his presence two thousand years ago, will continue to exert his influence
through a vast conglomerate of students around the globe, who will bless
humanity because of the teacher at whose feet they have received instruction.
….
No comments:
Post a Comment