2 of 3
John Stott observes that Jesus was a "controversialist" in that he was not "broad-minded." Jesus did not countenance any and every view on important subjects but instead engaged in extensive disputes, some quite heated, mostly with the Jewish intellectual leaders of his day. He was not afraid to cut against the grain of popular opinion if he deemed it to be wrong. He spoke often and passionately about the value of truth and the dangers of error, and he gave logical arguments to support truth and oppose error. This all sounds rather philosophical.
Why, then (as responses to Mr. Bush's comment revealed), do people find it odd to think of Jesus as a philosopher? In The Case Against Christianity, philosopher Michael Martin alleges that the Jesus of the Gospel accounts "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." Martin interprets Jesus' statement about the need to become like children to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:3) as praising uncritical belief.
These are damning charges against the claim that Jesus was a philosopher. But Martin misinterprets Jesus' statements uncharitably. If the rest of the Gospel material consistently showed Jesus avoiding or condemning any rational assessment of his teachings or claims, Martin's contention would be vindicated. But Jesus repeatedly engaged in a variety of bona fide arguments over theology, ethics, and his personal identity. He employed argument forms such as reductio ad absurdum (Matt. 22:41-46) and a fortiori (John 7:21-24), and appealed to evidence to ground his claims (Matt. 11:1-6). Jesus also deftly escaped from between the horns of logical dilemmas by constructing ingenious tertium quids, as when he avoided both statism and anarchy by saying that one must render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's (Matt. 22:15-22). The same Jesus who valued children also said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt. 22:37).
Consider the passage to which Martin refers. 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, those who humble themselves like this child are 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 would have it) but rather "become humble." Jesus spoke much of humility, and never associated humility with stupidity, ignorance, or gullibility. Jesus praised children for the same reasons that people have always praised them. Children are never viewed as models because they are irrational or immature, but because they are innocent and wholehearted in their love, devotion, and enthusiasm for life. They are esteemed because they can be disarmingly humble, having not learned the pretensions and posturings of the adult world. Jesus did thank God for revealing the gospel to the humble and not to the supposedly wise and understanding (Matt. 11:25-26). This, however, does not imply that intelligence is a detriment to believing Jesus' message, but that some of the religious leaders of the day could not grasp his message in part because of its humbling consequence.
share this page
RSS Feed
