by
Damien F. Mackey
“Bonaventure’s
metaphysics of Christ the center, according to Hayes, intended to correct that
which had been inherited from the Greek philosophers. …. Bonaventure’s deep
reflection on the prologue of John’s Gospel allowed him to see the metaphysical
and epistemological implications of the Word, incarnate in the person of Jesus
Christ. The Word is not only the Father’s self-expressiveness but it is the
relation of God to creation, humanity and the Scriptures”.
ILIA DELIO, O.S.F.
Introduction
My hopeful
quest in various of my philosophico-historical articles, to re-discover the origins
of human philosophy, or wisdom (σοφία), has led me to the conclusion that the science long pre-dated the
pagan Greeks, and that some of the most famous ancient names (founding fathers)
in the history of so-called ‘(Ionian) Greek’ philosophy were non-historical (biblical)
characters.
See e.g.
my:
Beware of Greeks Bearing Myths
Then, in
my article:
Philosophy of Jesus Christ
restoring Christian philosophy
to its biblical roots, with Jesus Christ, Wisdom Incarnate, as the focal point,
I quoted
Father Anthony Zimmerman on the subject:
The Philosophy of
Jesus Christ - 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”.
As well explained at: https://www.leadershipresources.org/a-simple-guide-for-seeing-how-the-old-testament-points-to-jesus-christ/
The Bible is one book telling one
story that culminates in One Person: Jesus Christ. The discipline of Biblical
Theology helps us see the overarching story of the Bible along with how each
piece fits into the whole and testifies of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament
prepares the way for and points to Christ, while the New Testament reveals and
explains who He is. The Old Testament displays a “shadow” of Christ whom we
experience in the New Testament (see Colossians 2:16-17).
Obviously Semitic-Hebrew
wisdom is not going to be expressed, or structured, in the same way as is the
Greek philosophy of which we are far more familiar. But, that all of the same
basic elements are to be found in Hebrew philosophy is apparent from this
perceptive article by Douglas Groothuis, revealing the metaphysical and rhetorical brilliance
of Jesus Christ (http://www.equip.org/articles/jesus-philosopher-and-apologist/):
Jesus: Philosopher and Apologist
This article first
appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 25, number 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
ESCAPING THE HORNS OF A
DILEMMA
We need to consult the Gospels
to determine whether or not Jesus prized well-developed critical thinking.
Several examples illustrate Jesus’ ability to escape from the horns of a
dilemma when challenged. We will look at one.12
Matthew recorded a tricky
situation for Jesus. The Sadducees had tried to corner Jesus on a question
about the afterlife. Unlike the Pharisees, they did not believe in life after death,
nor in angels or spirits (although they were theists), and they granted special
authority to only the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. The Sadducees
reminded Jesus of Moses’ command “that if a man dies without having children,
his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.” Then they proposed
a scenario in which the same woman is progressively married to and widowed by
seven brothers, none of whom sire any children by her. The woman subsequently
dies. “Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven,
since all of them were married to her?” they asked Jesus pointedly (Matt.
22:23–28).
Their argument is quite
clever. The Sadducees know that Jesus revered the law of Moses, as they did.
They also knew that Jesus, unlike themselves, taught that there will be a
resurrection of the dead. They thought that these two beliefs are logically at
odds with each other; they cannot both be true. The woman cannot be married to
all seven at the resurrection (Mosaic law did not allow for many husbands), nor
is there any reason why she should be married to any one out of the seven (thus
honoring monogamy). They figured, therefore, that Jesus must either stand
against Moses or deny the afterlife in order to remain free from contradiction.
They were presenting this scenario as a logical dilemma: either A (Moses’
authority) or B (the afterlife).
Martin and others have
asserted that Jesus praised uncritical faith.13 If these charges
were correct, one might expect Jesus (1) to dodge the question with a pious and
unrelated utterance, (2) to threaten hell for those who dare question his
authority, or (3) simply to accept both logically incompatible propositions
with no hesitation or shame. Instead, Jesus forthrightly said the Sadducees
were in error because they failed to know the Scripture and the power of God:
At the resurrection people
will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in
heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead — have you not read what God
said to you, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”?
He is not the God of the dead but of the living. (Matt. 22:30–32)
Jesus’ response has an
astuteness that may not be immediately obvious. First, He challenged their
assumption that belief in the resurrection means that one is committed to
believing that all of our premortem institutions will be retained in the
postmortem, resurrected world. None of the Hebrew Scriptures teaches this, and
Jesus did not believe it. The dilemma thus dissolves. It is a false dilemma
because Jesus stated a third option: There is no married state at the
resurrection.
Second, as part of His
response to their logical trap, Jesus compared the resurrected state of men and
women to that of the angels, thus challenging the Sadducees’ disbelief in
angels. (Although the Sadducees did not believe in angels, they knew that their
fellow Jews, who did believe in angels, thought that angels did not marry or
procreate.)
Third, Jesus cited a text from
the Sadducees’ own esteemed Scriptures (Exod. 3:6), where God declared to Moses
from the burning bush that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus
could have cited a variety of texts from writings outside the first five books
of the Bible to support the resurrection, such as the prophets (Dan. 12:2) or
Job (19:25–27), but instead He deftly argued from their own trusted sources,
which He also endorsed (Matt. 5:17–20; John 10:35).
Fourth, Jesus capitalized on
the verb tense of the verse He quoted. God is (present tense) the God
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all of whom had already died at the time God had
uttered this statement to Moses. God did not cease to be their God at their
earthly demise. God did not say, “I was their God” (past tense). God is the God
of the living, which includes even the “dead” patriarchs. Matthew added, “When
the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching,” for Jesus had
“silenced the Sadducees” (Matt. 22:33–34).
The skill of logically
escaping the horns of a dilemma is applicable to many apologetic challenges.
Consider one of them; philosophers often argue that making God the source of
morality results in a hopeless dilemma. If morality is based on God’s will,
they claim, God could will anything — including murder, rape, and blasphemy —
and it would be good. This view is absurd. If, on the other hand, we make moral
standards separate from God’s will, then God loses His moral supremacy because
God ends up “under” these impersonal, objective, and absolute moral standards.
The dilemma, then, is this: Either (A) morality is arbitrary or (B) God is not
supreme. Since both are unacceptable to Christianity, Christianity is refuted.
One can escape the horns of
this dilemma by showing that it is a false dilemma. The source of morality is
not God’s will separated from God’s eternally perfect character; rather, divine
commands issue from God’s intrinsic being. Since God’s character is
unchangingly good, God cannot alter moral standards because He cannot deny
Himself (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). Furthermore, since God is the Creator of the
world and of humans, God knows what is best for humans to flourish. His
instructions for us are for our blessing as well as God’s own glory (Matt.
5:1-16; Col. 3:17).14 The dilemma dissolves.
A FORTIORI ARGUMENTS
Jesus was fond of what are
called a fortiori (Latin: “from the stronger”) arguments, which often
appear in pithy but persuasive forms in the Gospels.15 We use them
often in everyday arguments. These arguments have the following form:
1. The truth of idea A is
accepted.
2. Support for the truth of
idea B (which is relevantly similar to idea A) is even stronger than that of
idea A.
3. Therefore, if the truth of
idea A must be accepted, then so must the truth of idea B be accepted.
Consider Jesus’ argument
against the Pharisees concerning the rightness of His performing a healing
miracle on the Sabbath:
I did one miracle [on the
Sabbath], and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision
(though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you
circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the
Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me
for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, and
make a right judgment. (John 7:21–24)
Jesus’ argument can be laid
out simply:
1. The Pharisees endorse
circumcision, even when it is done on the Sabbath, the day of rest from work.
(Circumcision was performed eight days after the birth of a male, which
sometimes fell on the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath.) This does not
violate the Sabbath laws, because it is an act of goodness.
2. Healing the whole person is
even more important and beneficial than circumcision, which affects only one
aspect of the male.
3. Therefore, if circumcision
on the Sabbath is not a violation of the Sabbath, neither is Jesus’ healing of
a person on the Sabbath.
Jesus’ concluding comment,
“Stop judging by appearances, and make a right judgment,” was a rebuke to their
illogical inconsistency while applying their own moral and religious
principles.
Jesus argued in a similar form
in several other conversations regarding the meaning of the Sabbath. After He
healed a crippled woman on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler became indignant
and said, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days,
not on the Sabbath!” Jesus reminded him that one may lawfully untie one’s ox or
donkey on the Sabbath and lead it to water. “Then should not this woman, a
daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set
free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?” Jesus’ argument looks like this:
1. The Jews lawfully release
animals from their confinement on the Sabbath out of concern for the animals’
well-being.
2. A woman’s well-being
(deliverance from a chronic, debilitating illness) is far more important than
watering an animal.
3. Therefore, if watering an
animal on the Sabbath is not a Sabbath violation, then Jesus’ healing of the
woman on the Sabbath is not a violation of the Sabbath.
Luke recorded that when Jesus
“said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted
with all the wonderful things he was doing” (Luke 13:17, see 13:10–17).
A wise apologist will make
good and repeated use of a fortiori arguments. Here is an example from
comparative religion. Many reject the Gospels because they are ancient
documents that are supposedly historically unreliable. Many of these same
people, however, trust ancient Buddhist and other Eastern religious documents.
Besides giving good reasons to trust the Gospels, we can use the following a
fortiori argument concerning their trust in Eastern texts. The Buddhist
scriptures were not written down until about 500 years after the life of the
Buddha (563–483 b.c.). Buddhist scholar Edward Conze notes that while
Christianity can distinguish its “initial tradition embodied in the ‘New
Testament’” from a “continuing tradition” consisting of reflections of the
church fathers and councils, “Buddhists possess nothing that corresponds to the
‘New Testament.’ The ‘continuing tradition’ is all that is clearly attested.”16
If people trust ancient and poorly attested Buddhist documents, how much
more should they trust the Gospels, which are far more firmly rooted in
verifiable history?17 The apologist then hopes that those who read
the Gospels as historically reliable will discover their incompatibility with,
and superiority to, Buddhist teachings.
JESUS’ APPEAL TO EVIDENCE IN
ARGUMENT
Despite the frequent portrayal
of Jesus as a mystical figure who called people to adopt an uncritical faith,
He frequently appealed to evidence to confirm His claims. John the Baptist, who
was languishing in prison after challenging Herod, sent messengers to ask Jesus
the question: “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone
else?” (Matt. 11:3). This may seem an odd question from a man the Gospels
present as the prophetic forerunner of Jesus and as the one who had proclaimed
Jesus to be the Messiah. Jesus, however, did not rebuke John’s question. He did
not say, “You must have faith; suppress your doubts.” Nor did He scold, “If you
don’t believe, you’ll go to hell and miss heaven.” Instead, Jesus recounted the
distinctive features of His ministry:
Go back and report to John
what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have
leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is
preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.
(Matt. 11:4–6; see also Luke 7:22)
Jesus’ works of healing and
teaching are meant to serve as positive evidence of His messianic identity,
because they fulfill the messianic predictions of the Hebrew Scriptures.18
What Jesus claimed is this:
1. If one does certain kinds
of actions (the acts cited above), then one is the Messiah.
2. I am doing those kinds of
actions.
3. Therefore, I am the
Messiah.
This logical sequence is
called a modus ponens (way of affirmation) form of argument and it is
a handy tool of thought: If P, then Q; P, therefore, Q. The argument appeals to
empirical claims — Jesus’ mighty works — as its factual basis. The acts Jesus
cited point out His crucial apologetic credentials as the Messiah, “the one who
was to come.”
On another occasion, Jesus
again healed on the Sabbath and the religious leaders again challenged Him for
breaking the sacred day by working. He responded, “My Father is always at his
work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” Jesus’ disputants viewed His
statement as blasphemy because “not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he
was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (John
5:17–18). Ancient Jews sometimes referred to God as Father, but not with the
possessive “my Father” since they thought this suggested too close of a
relationship between the Creator and the creature.
Instead of denying this
conclusion, Jesus made six other statements that reinforce their conclusion
that He was, in fact, “making himself equal with God:”
1. He acts in the same manner
as the Father by giving life to the dead (John 5:19–21).
2. He judges as a
representative of the Father and with His authority (5:22, 27).
3. If He is not honored, God
the Father is not honored (5:23).
4. The one who believes in
Jesus believes also in God (5:24–25).
5. Like God (see Deut.
30:19–20), He has life in Himself (5:26).
6. He is in complete agreement
with the Father, whom He perfectly pleased — a claim no Jew in the Hebrew
Scriptures ever made (5:30).
Jesus, however, did not leave
the matter only with His assertions. He moved to apologetics by appealing to
evidence to which His hearers would have had access:
1. John the Baptist, a
respected prophet, testified to Jesus’ identity (John 5:31–35).
2. Jesus’ miraculous works
also testified to His identity (5:36).
3. The Father testified to
Jesus’ identity (5:37).
4. The Scriptures likewise
testified to His identity (5:39).
5. Moses testified to who
Jesus is (5:46).
Jesus reasoned with His
intellectual opponents and did not shrink from issuing evidence for His claims.19
He did not simply make statements, threaten punishments to those who disagreed,
or attack His adversaries as unspiritual. He highly valued argument and
evidence.
Christian apologetics marshals
many kinds of evidence in the rational defense of Christian truth. We need not
believe the gospel through blind faith. In denying these facts, however, Robert
Millet, formerly dean of religious education at Brigham Young University, has
defended Mormon claims, despite their admitted lack of evidence, by saying that
“Christian faith is dependent upon acceptance of a divine miracle that took
place on Easter morning, for which there is no evidence.”20 He
argues, therefore, if Christian belief in the Resurrection is without evidence,
but is acceptable, then the Mormon “leap of faith” is justified, too.
This is an a fortiori
argument; but it is false that there is no evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.
Jesus’ teaching, as well as the history of apologetics, argues against this
kind of fideism (faith against or without objective evidence) that Millet
wrongly associates with Christianity and rightly associates with Mormonism. The
apostle Paul himself cited the many witnesses who saw the resurrected Christ,
some of whom were still living at the time he wrote (1 Cor. 15:5–8).
Contemporary philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has written widely on
the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. He also publicly debates those
who deny this truth. The evidence includes the general historical reliability
of the Gospels, as well as the specific and well-attested individual facts of
the empty tomb, the many appearances of Jesus to various people at different
times, and the apostles’ proclamation of the Resurrection despite the fact that
it went against what they themselves had expected of the Messiah. Other
explanations for belief in the Resurrection, such as it being a hallucination
or a myth created later, simply do not fit the facts.21 Since belief
in Jesus’ resurrection should be, and is, based on historical evidence,
Millet’s argument that key Mormon doctrines require no evidence is refuted.22
JESUS’ USE OF REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM ARGUMENTS
Philosophers and other
debaters use reductio ad absurdum arguments. The term means “reduction
to absurdity.” When successful, they are a powerful refutation of an illogical
position. The argument takes one or more ideas and demonstrates that they lead
to an absurd or contradictory conclusion. This proves that the original ideas
must be false. For such an argument to work, the logical relationship between
the terms must hold and the supposed absurdity must truly be absurd. Consider
Jesus’ apologetic use of reductio ad absurdum in defending His
identity as the Messiah.
Jesus asked the Pharisees,
“What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” The reply was, “The son
of David.” Jesus responded, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit,
calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies under your feet.’” By quoting Psalm 110:1, Jesus
appealed to a source that the Pharisees accepted. He concluded with the
question: “If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” which, as
Matthew recorded, silenced the audience (see Matt. 22:41–46). The argument can
be stated as follows:
1. If the Christ is merely the
human descendent of David, David could not have called him “Lord.”
2. David did call the Christ
“Lord” in Psalm 110:1.
3. To believe Christ was
David’s Lord and merely his human descendent (who could not be his Lord) is
absurd.
4. Christ, therefore, is not
merely the human descendent of David.
Jesus’ point was not to deny
the Christ’s ancestral connection to David, since Jesus Himself is called “the
Son of David” in the Gospels (Matt. 1:1), and Jesus accepted the title without
objection (Matt. 20:30–31). Jesus rather showed that the Christ is not merely
the Son of David. Christ is also Lord and was so at the time of David. By using
this reductio ad absurdum argument, Jesus expanded His audience’s
understanding of who the Christ is and that He himself is the Christ.23
Jesus employed another reductio
ad absurdum when the Pharisees attempted to discredit His reputation as an
exorcist by charging Him with driving out demons by the agency of Beelzebub,
the prince of demons. In other words, Jesus’ reputation as a holy wonderworker
was undeserved. What seemed to be godly miracles really issued from a demonic
being. In response to this charge, Jesus took their premise and derived an
absurdity:
Every kingdom divided against
itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will
not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then
can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your
people drive them out? (Matt. 12:25–27)
We can put it this way,
step-by-step:
1. If Satan were divided
against himself, his kingdom would be ruined.
2. Satan’s kingdom, however,
is not ruined (since demonic activity continues). To think otherwise is absurd.
3. Therefore, (a) Satan does
not drive out Satan.
4. Therefore, (b) Jesus cannot
free people from Satan by satanic power.
The Pharisees also practiced
exorcism, moreover, and if Jesus cast out demons by Satan, then the Pharisees must
grant that they too might be driving out demons by Satan (Matt. 12:27). The
Pharisees themselves, however, must reject this accusation as absurd. Jesus,
therefore, cannot be accused of exercising satanic power through His exorcisms.
Jesus marshaled two powerful reductio arguments in just a few
sentences.
Reductio ad absurdum
arguments are powerful tools for defending Christian truth. Those who claim
that morality is entirely relative to the individual think this view defends
tolerance, avoids dogmatism, and is preferable to the Christian belief in moral
absolutes. The statement, however, that (1) “all morality is relative”
logically implies that (2) anyone’s belief is right if it is right for them and
that there is no higher standard to which one is accountable. Relativism,
however, leads to many absurd conclusions such as: (3) Osama bin Laden’s
morality is right for him, so we should not judge it, and (4) Nazi morality is
right for the Nazis, therefore, we should not judge it. In other words, moral
relativism is reduced to moral nihilism, but moral nihilism is absurd and is,
therefore, false. By contrast, Christian morality is far more compelling.
PUTTING ON THE MIND OF CHRIST
This brief article does not do
justice to the wealth of Jesus’ philosophical and apologetic arguments across a
wide variety of important issues. Our sampling of Jesus’ reasoning, however,
brings into serious question the indictment that Jesus praised uncritical faith
over rational arguments and that He had no truck with logical consistency. On
the contrary, Jesus never demeaned the proper and rigorous functioning of our
God-given minds. His teaching appealed to the whole person: the imagination
(parables), the will, and reasoning abilities.
For all their honesty in
reporting the foibles of the disciples, the Gospel writers never narrated a
situation in which Jesus was intellectually stymied or bettered in an argument;
neither did Jesus ever encourage an irrational or ill-informed faith on the
part of His disciples. With Jesus as our example and Lord, the Holy Scriptures
as our foundation (2 Tim. 3:15–17), and the Holy Spirit as our Teacher (John
16:12–15), we should gladly take up the biblical challenge to outthink the
world for Christ and His kingdom (2 Cor. 10:3–5).
NOTES
1.
See Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority (Waco, TX: Word
Books, 1979), 3:164–247.
2.
All Bible quotations are from the New International Version.
3.
See Douglas Groothuis, On Jesus (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning, 2002), chaps. 4–7.
4.
See John Stott, Christ the Controversialist (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1970), 18.
5. Dallas Willard, “Jesus,
the Logician,” Christian Scholars Review 28, 4 (1999): 607.
6.
James Sire, Habits of the Mind: Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 203.
7.
Michael Martin, The Case against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1991), 167.
8.
Ibid.
9.
See Matt. 23:1–12; Luke 14:1–14; 18:9–14.
10.
Martin, 167.
11.
On the claims and credentials of Jesus, see Douglas Groothuis, Jesus in an
Age of Controversy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1996; Wipf and Stock
reprint, 2002), especially chaps. 13–14.
12.
Another example of Jesus escaping the horns of a dilemma is found in Matt.
22:15–22. See Groothuis, On Jesus, 26–27.
13.
See Groothuis, On Jesus, chaps. 1 and 3.
14.
See James Hanick and Gary Mar, “What Euthyphro Couldn’t Have Said,” Faith
and Philosophy 4, 3 (1987): 241–61.
15.
See, for example, Luke 11:11–12; 12:4–5; 6–7; 24; 27–28; 54–56; 13:14–16;
14:1–6; 18:1–8.
16.
“Introduction,” in Buddhist Scriptures, ed. Edward Conze (New York:
Penguin Books, 1959), 11–12.
17.
The Buddhist texts are so far removed from the time of the Buddha and so
riddled with myths that, outside of giving the teaching of the Four Noble
Truths, they are likely not trustworthy at all.
18.
See Isa. 26:19; 29:18–19; 35:4–6; 61:1–2.
19.
See Sire, 191–92.
20.
Quoted in Lawrence Wright, “Lives of the Saints,” The New Yorker, 21
January 2002, 51.
21.
See Paul Copan and Ronald Tacelli, eds., Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or
Figment: A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdeman (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
22.
For a revealing history of Mormonism, see Richard Abanes, One Nation under
Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows,
2002).
23. See also Acts 2:29–36;
13:39; Heb. 1:5–13.
