Jesus was intellectual

JESUS WAS INTELLECTUAL
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Jesus The Intellectual
As the Son of God, Jesus was anintellectual without compare. The way He
spoke is evidence enough. His stories and images were simple and yet tax the
finest intellect to fully interpret. They spoke to all men. His debating skills
were extraordinary. In a split second, it seems, He could turn a question back
on His interrogators to confound them in the profoundest way. His words
often contain allusions to 5 or 6 Old Testamentpassages in the same sentence,
all perfectly and compellingly in context. If He had so allowedHis mind to
wander down the paths of science, He would have easily graspedthe
principles of gravity, relativity etc. that took a Newtonor an Einstein of later
centuries to uncover. And who knows, maybe He did figure all this. Maybe He
mused about the surface tension on the waterin His cup as He took a break
with the guys at work. This would have resulted in an ineffable loneliness, as
He lived and workedamongstthe simplest and pooresthuman beings. There
must have been so many things that He troubled over that He could share
with nobody. Nobody, apart from His Father in prayer. Here we take a breath
in sheeradmiration. For He could relate so well to them, He was one of them,
yet He was so far above them. We tend to relate well only to those of our own
type. Whereas the Lord was truly all things to all men. And this, it seems to
me, is the essenceofpowerful preaching and influencing of others for good, to
be able to truly relate to them, as one of them, and yet have earnt enough
respectfrom them to be able to leadthem to higher levels. Further, if you feel,
as we all do to some extent, to be essentiallydifferent from those around you,

to think in different ways from them to the point you just pine awayinside
your own personality...think of Jesus. He " came down" from Heaven to earth
for us- not literally, of course, but in His manifestation of Heavenly things in
the terms of flesh.
The remarkable nature of Jesus wasn't, it seems, recognizedby those He grew
up with. When He beganHis public ministry by standing up in the synagogue,
both the villagers and His own family were scandalized [Gk.]that He was
claiming to be anything other than the Jesus-ben-Josephthey had always
known. Yet they had all heard the stories about the strange conceptionof
John, the belief he was the Elijah prophet heralding Messiah, who was to have
been Jesus, the Angel's visit, etc. They shouldn't have been too surprised,
surely, if one day He claimed to be Messiah?But their surprise is surely an
indication of how totally ordinary and human He appeared. Even His cousin
John seems to have not always found it obvious that Jesus was indeed
Messiah. He was too human, it seems. Here againwe bow in admiration
before Him. To be perfect, never committing sin and never omitting an act of
righteousness, andyet to be seenas someone totally ordinary...here indeed
was the word made flesh in exquisite beauty. Wheneverwe actrighteous, or
decline to actas the world does, we seemto somehow turn people off. We
come over as self-righteous, as getting at them. But not Jesus. His conceptof
holiness was evidently different from that of those around Him. He didn't
show Himself to be so scrupulously obedient to the Law as 'holy' people were
at His time. He came over as an ordinary guy. And in all this, He seta
compelling example and challenge to those who really gotto know Him: You
could be an ordinary person appearing as everyone else, but underneath your
simple ordinariness, possess extraordinaryholiness. The Lord Jesus spoke to
the people in earthly parables which they could relate to, rather than
expositions of specific OT texts as the Rabbis did- seeing that, it has been
estimated, 95% of Palestine was illiterate. Yet those parables were skillfully
packedwith allusions to OT Scriptures, for those who were on that level. This
was surely the Lord's matchlessness-He could relate to all types of people on
different levels, all at the same time. He was truly all things to all men.
The Messianic Ps. 40:9 predicted how the Lord would preachor proclaim
righteousness;and yet He never allowedHimself to be loudly preachedin the

streets, and the people He lived with consideredHim so ordinary. Yet He
proclaimed righteousness;“to the greatcongregation” (LXX ekklesia), to
those who perceivedHim. Although He was not widely recognizedfor who He
was, He overcame the temptation to hide God’s righteousness in His heart, to
concealGod’s truth within Him (Ps. 40:10). He didn’t merely internalize His
own spirituality; and, seeing most people didn’t understand who He really
was, this must have been such a temptation. Instead, He consciouslydeclared
God’s righteousness, against,presumably, His natural inclinations [so Ps.
40:10 implies].
The parables are to me the greatestwindow onto the Lord's intellectual
genius. They meant one thing for those who heard them; and yet even those
with no idea of the cultural milieu in which the Lord spoke them can still
learn so much from them. The more we struggle to interpret them, the more
layers of meaning and Old Testamentallusion we perceive; and the more
bitingly personally relevant they become to us. The Old Testamentscriptures
were clearly in the bloodstream of Jesus, allusions to them just flow out in all
kinds of ways, at all sorts of levels. He was the word made flesh. I believe the
Lord didn't just open His mouth and the stories flowedout, by some Divine
impulse. They were clearlyrooted in His own life experience amongstthe
peasants ofGalilee;His genius was in the way He so deeply reflectedupon
mundane life and brought it all to such glorious and vivid spiritual life. I
submit that He had spent years developing those stories, and of course the
ideas behind them. They are an art form, quite apart from the reflectionthey
give of the Lord's spiritual insights. Paul spoke in theologicalterms, using
conceptuallanguage. Butthe parables address those same issues, e.g. ofgrace
and forgiveness, in a simple and pictorial form. As the exquisite art form
which they are, they reveal to us the huge creative energy and achievement of
Jesus. We all have creative potential; but we are held back from painting that
picture, penning that poem, writing that book, finishing that project... because
of the mundane. The cat's puked on the carpet, the kids are crying, we're
worried about cashflow this month because the gutter broke... but the Lord
Jesus was assailedby all these things, and far more. And yet He didn't allow
all this 'humanity' to impede His creativity; He in fact used all those very
mundane things as fuel for His thinking, mixing them in with His constant

meditations upon the text of God's word to produce the parables. I salute Him
and bow before Him for this. What a joy it will be to meet Him, to see /
perceive Him as He is... and, quite simply, to experience the truth of the fact
that 'We shall be like Him'. The emphasis must be on the word "Him"- we
shall be like Him. David had this spirit, when speaking ofhis future Messiah:
"I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness" (Ps. 17:15).
Jesus and the Intellectual
Dr. Bill Bright
Who, in your opinion, is the most outstanding personality of all time?
I have posedthis question to people of many religions, even atheists and
Communists, around the world. The answerfrom all knowledgeable people is
always the same: “JesusofNazareth.”
I recallthe response ofa young radicalattending the University of California,
Berkeley. The campus was the fountainhead of the turbulent student
revolution during the 1960s. Foran entire week, 600 ofour Campus Crusade
staff and students personallyshared the claims of Christ in small and large
meetings with approximately 23,000students. Thousands expressedtheir
desire to receive and follow Jesus as their Savior and Lord.
Early in the week, I interviewed the acknowledgedleaderof the revolution.
She had been born into a non-Christian religion and was a dedicatedatheist
and committed Communist, demanding the violent overthrow of our
government.
I askedher, “Who is the greatestpersonwho has ever lived? Who in all of
history has done the most goodfor mankind?”

There was a long, awkwardsilence andfinally a reluctant reply, “I guess I
would have to sayJesus of Nazareth.”
People of every religion, if they know the facts, acknowledge thatJesus Christ
is the unique personality of all time.
He is the One who has changedthe whole course ofhistory. History is His
story.
Remove Jesus ofNazareth from history and it would be a completely different
story.
Considertoday’s date on your calendar. It gives witness to the fact that Jesus
of Nazareth lived on the earth. B.C. means “Before Christ,” and A.D., “anno
Domini,” is the Latin phrase translated “in the year of our Lord.”
No other personhas influenced the world for goodmore than Jesus Christ.
Wherever His true messagehas gone, greatchanges have takenplace in the
lives of men and nations.
One writer described Christ’s influence in this way:
Nineteenwide centuries have come and gone and today He is the center-piece
of the human race and the leaderof the column of progress. I am far within
the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched and all the navies
that ever were built, and all of the parliaments that ever have sat, and all the
kings that ever reigned put togetherhave not affectedthe life of man upon
this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life, Jesus of Nazareth.*
During His ministry, Jesus made many claims about Himself. He said, for
example, that He was equal with God the Father, eternal, and the only way to
heaven.
Almost everyone who knows anything about Jesus would admit that He had a
profound influence on the world. But was He more than just a teacherand
leader?

Jesus and an Intellectual
Author: Ray C. Stedman
Readthe Scripture: John 2:23-3:15
The soul winning of our Lord is not something I’m anxious to preach about. I
would instead have us just study and view togethera subject I am sure
concerns us all, this matter of being an effective witness for Christ. Tonight we
are going to look at the encounterour Lord had with an intellectual, as to
what this teaches us concerning the encounters that we have had – and will
have, I am sure – with those who are intellectuals in our own day.
I’d like to begin by reading in the gospelof John, the secondchapterverse 23:
Now when Jesus was in Jerusalemat the Passoverfeast, many believed in His
name when they saw the signs which He did. But Jesus did not trust Himself
unto them because He knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of
man, for He Himself knew what was in man.
Now there’s the secretof the uncanny ability our Lord demonstratedto go to
the heart of any individual problem that came before Him. It wasn’tthat He
knew everything about everyone; it wasn’tthat He was drawing upon His
omnisciency, as a member of the godheadhere. But He knew what was in
man, He knew man. And because He knew man, He also knew men, and so, all
the little ways by which we continually manifest what we are. Jesus was able
to interpret, as He heard their words and saw their gestures, the small, trivial

indications that are part of every person’s life. He knew how to interpret them
correctly, because He knew what was in man. This is the secretofour Lord’s
soul winning. The more we know man the better we will know men.
In our Bibles we have a chapter break right at this point, but this is one of
those places where the chapterdivision obscures a wonderful truth. The next
verse in my RevisedStandard Version from which I am reading is the word
“now” – “Now there was a man of the Phariseesnamed Nicodemus” – here I
really think the translation should begin with the word “but.” If you read that
last sentence again, it tells us,
Jesus did not trust Himself to the pharisees because He knew all men, and
needed no one to bear witness of man, for He Himself knew what was in man.
But there was a man of the Pharisees namedNicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him: “Rabbi we know you are a
teachercome from God for no one can do these signs that you do unless God
is with him.”
Now here is one of the men who Jesus knew, and he came to Jesus by night,
and we have this tremendous story of Jesus and Nicodemus. I’m going to take
a look with you first at Nicodemus. Perhaps you wonder why I calledthis man
an intellectual, because mostfrequently when this story is preached,
Nicodemus is regardedas a religious man. This story shows our Lord’s
treatment of an unregenerate, religious man. And of course this is true.
Nicodemus was a religious leader. He was, as Jesus Himself said a little later
to him, "the masterof Israel,” that is, one of the prominent teachers ofthe
Jews. He was a prodigy. He was raisedin that strictestof the Jewishsects that
included also Saul of Tarsus, and was a rigid exponent of the literal meaning
of the law and every aspectof it.
But this is not really what was troubling Nicodemus, or the problem that
causedthis man to seek outJesus. It wasn’t a religious problem that brought
him, it was simply intellectual curiosity, and I think if we read this carefully
we can see this. Here is a man who could not explain Jesus. He had been
listening to Him. He had heard some of His messages. He had perhaps even

seensome of His works, His miracles. But he couldn’t explain it. Somehow
here was a man who didn’t fit the usual categoriesinto which Nicodemus was
accustomedto placing men.
His curiosity is arousedby this, until he comes by night – not because he’s
afraid, I don’t think, but because he simply desires a private interview. And
he comes on a scientific investigation. He is out to discoverthe evidence that
he lacks in order to possibly categorize Jesus.
I think all this is evident, in his opening words to our Lord when he says to
Him:
“Rabbi,” (that’s a term of respect)“we know that you are a teachercome
from God because no one can do these things which you do unless God is with
him.”
That’s a very honest statement, and it reflects this man’s opinion of Jesus.
He’s simply, honestly stating what he thinks: “I think you’re a teacher,” he
says. “And a man sent from God,” that is, a prophet. I never read this without
being very sure that Nicodemus meant to go on, and saysomething else. This
was only the introduction. What Nicodemus says is simply laying the
groundwork for what he intended to say, but he never gets a chance.
Of course it’s always dangerous to try to supply the lapses of Scripture, and
perhaps it’s dangerous to try to figure out what Nicodemus said. But judging
from his approachit seems very likely that what he intended to say was to ask
a question. He meant to go on. What he was saying is:
Yes, I know that you are a teacherand you’re a prophet. This I can accept. I
know all about teachers and prophets, I know the scriptures. And I know that
God sends men from time to time who are prophets, and you’re one of them.
But why do you talk so differently from the rest of the prophets? And why do
you claim such strange things for yourself? And how do you intend to usher in
the promised kingdom by this process?
Undoubtedly this is something, at least, of what Nicodemus is thinking, and
what he intended to ask, and why he came to Jesus, because his curiosity is
aroused.

Now we can’t read this accountof Nicodemus and our Lord without being
aware that here is a man who had a great, personalneed, of which he is totally
unaware. Here is a man who is a prominent religious leader, but he is a man
of the flesh, unregenerate, unsaved. He’s totally unconscious ofhis need, and
it isn’t a hunger for righteousness that brings him to Christ. It isn’t a desire to
have that personalemptiness of his life met. It’s simply that he’s intent upon
solving an intellectual problem, of which Jesus is part. And he wants to get
some more information in order that he might analyze and explain this man to
himself.
Now this is always the problem of the intellectual. An intellectual is a man
who has trained himself not to leap to conclusions. He’s a man who rules out
all leaps of faith, and is very highly suspicious of any intuitive knowledge. He
refuses to commit himself until he has understoodthoroughly the process that
is before him. For the intellectual there’s never any room for mystery – he
doesn’t think mysteries exist. They are for him always just something that is
not quite understood. The intellectual is primarily a man who is convinced
that the ordinary human intelligence, properly employed and used to gather
in all the salient facts, cananalyze and sift things out, and put them into a
proper structure. Human intelligence can explain everything that needs
explaining. Now this was this man Nicodemus.
I think of our friend Dr. Gerhard Dirks, the inventor of the hard disk drive,
who is something of an intellectual himself. Someone told me that Dr. Dirks
has an IQ of 212 degrees,orwhatever it is. (That’s the boiling point, isn’t it?)
This makes him somewhatof an intellectual. I remember lastsummer in one
of our meetings at his home, he said, “You know, the problem with we
intellectuals is that we are never content to simply enjoy the result of
something. We have to understand how it works.”
He said, “You know, a child can go up to a televisionset and turn it on, and
adjust the dials a little bit, and sit down and enjoy the program. But an
intellectual can’t. That is if he’s never seena televisionset before. He
immediately has to move around behind, and remove the back, and see what
makes the thing work. He will never enjoy the program until he has
understood the process by which it happens.” You see, this is always the

problem of an intellectual – he insists on understanding the process. Often,
despite the tremendous strides that have been made by intellectuals who
follow this process, neverthelessthey often getso intent on the process that
they lose sight of the end.
I remember in seminary we had a young man who was a classmate ofmine,
who was an intellectual. He had a very brilliant mind, and he was studying for
the ministry in a theologicalseminary. He carried around a little pocketslide
rule that he had stuffed into his shirt pocket. Wheneverany kind of problem
was presented, theologicalorotherwise, out would come the slide rule, and
he’d go to work on it. By use of his slide rule, he actually divided up the entire
Bible into 365 sections, ofexactlythe same length, for his Bible reading.
Whenever he finished the prescribedsection, he’d close the book, no matter if
it was in the middle of a story or not.
He was continually interested in working out details. They challengedhim. He
was constantlyseeking to understand processes, but as a result he quite
frequently lostsight of the practicalaspectof the matter at hand, and would
end up instead in a rather ludicrous position. I remember on one occasion, a
number of us who studied with him in the upper reaches ofthe library – up in
what we called“the seventh heaven” – decided to confera degree upon him.
All in fun we gottogetherone night and surprised him. We made a little paper
diploma, and with appropriate ceremonies we presentedit to him. It was my
privilege to confer upon him the degree of MM, Masterof Minutiae. This was
his problem, that of an intellectual.
This is also the problem, by the way, that produces what we call the absent-
minded professor. An absent-minded professoris simply an intellectual who is
so intent on solving the problems of life, that the practice of life throws him
completely. This why he is always winding the cat, and putting the clock out,
and these kinds of things. He will drive downtown and forget his car, and
walk home, because he’s so intent on intellectual pursuits that he forgets the
basics of life.
This was the problem with this man Nicodemus. He was convincedthat if he
had enough information he could explain Jesus. He was sure that there could

ultimately be no mystery about the kingdom of God. Once all the facts were
known it could all be explained. And so, like most intellectuals who struggle in
this area, he had no need for faith, and he was convinced that knowledge
savedand knowledge setfree. In that part, the intellectual is right –
knowledge does setfree. But what he fails to see is that there are various
forms of knowledge,and some cannot be appropriated by anything other than
a step of faith. This is what this intellectual did not see.
I had breakfastthis last Friday with such a man. We had an interesting time
together. As some of you know, I meet on Friday mornings with a number of
men who are interested in discovering for themselves whatthe Scripture has
to say about Jesus Christ, and who He was. We’ve had some marvelous times
togetherin the book of Romans. The other day one of our men happened to
read in the localnewspapera letter to the editor from a man who was
remarking that churches were not reaching thinking people today. His
comments had interested one of our men, and so he invited him to come to our
breakfastgroup. And last Friday morning he was there!
He was an engaging, interesting fellow and he gave us a rather learned
presentationon the difference betweenan authoritarian mind and a scientific
mind. He had it all workedout on parallel columns on a paper. It was evident
as we listened and read, that to his mind, at least, the authoritarian mind is
one which simply accepts everything by blind faith, while the scientific mind is
one which investigates and is open. A scientific thinker is ready to change his
mind when new evidence is presented. It wasn’tdifficult to see that, in his
conclusion, he felt that all those that believe the Bible belong in the
authoritarian group, while those who rejectedthe Bible were ones with a
scientific mind. We had a discussionwith him on this matter. For him there
was no room for mystery left.
Now this was the problem of Nicodemus as he came to meet Jesus. And what
did our Lord do? How did He handle this man? This is what is fascinating
about this account. We read that Jesus “answeredhim.” ”Answered” him?
But Nicodemus had askedno question. Clearly Jesus is “answering” that
unaskedquestion which Nicodemus didn’t getto. Our Lord had interrupted
Nicodemus;he hadn’t even let him finish. Jesus had cut right across allof the

human thinking, all the religious philosophy, all the limited vision of this
intellectual, with these words:“Truly, truly I sayto you, unless one is born
anew he cannotsee the kingdom of God.”
Let me stop there a minute. To what other person in the New Testamentdid
Jesus eversay, “you must be born again?” Canyou answerthat? (Now don’t
hesitate to speak up!) Not to anybody. Isn’t that strange? Formost of us,
when we go on the path of winning someone, this is almostthe first thing to
say. We say it to everyone. “You must be born again.” But our Lord only said
it to one man, that we have any recordof.
Now I don’t mean by that to imply that Jesus is suggesting that all men do not
need to be born again. What I simply mean by that is that this is not always
the right method of approachfor everyone. Our Lord reachedpeople by other
ways as well, but for this man, this intellectual, he staggershim, he shocks him
with this drastic, radical, revolutionary statementthat only once a man is
born againcan he then see the Kingdom of God.
In effect, Jesus Is saying:“Nicodemus, you are thinking of me as a teacher
and as a prophet, and that I can solve by knowledge all the problems of the
nation, and deliver them from the power of the world. But a teacherand a
prophet is not your basic need. You need more than this. You need a new life.
You need a new birth. You need to be made into a new man, into a new
creation, or you cannever even see the Kingdom of God that you are so
concernedwith.”
Now this must have been a staggering thoughtfor Nicodemus. I don’t think it
had ever occurredto this man before that he needed to be changedbefore he
could enter into the Kingdom of God. I think he had taken it for granted all of
his life, not because he was proud, but simply because he was unconscious
entirely of the nature of the kingdom of God, and of his ownpersonal need in
this respect. And so I think, almost in honest confusion, he blurts out: “How
can a man be born when he’s old? Can he enter a secondtime into his
mother’s womb and be born?”
Now this is a very honestquestion. I think it’s one, had we been there, that we
would have askedourselves. WhatNicodemus is saying is: “Lord you are

saying something to me that I do not understand. How can this be? How can
this happen? What is the process by which this takes place? I am convinced
enough that you are a man of authority and of knowledge,a teacherand a
prophet, to give some very realcredence to what you say, but how does it
happen? How? What is the process?The only life I know is the physical life.
Surely you don’t mean that we have to start it all over again, and go back
through the gynecologicalprocesses,back into the mother’s womb and start
over?”
Now notice our Lord’s answer. You see what Jesus has done is that He’s
pulled the rug out from under this intellectual. Jesus has staggeredhim by
making him aware that he doesn’t know what he thinks he knows, by showing
him that the conceptof the kingdom of God is a totally different thing than
anything that he ever had in mind. And it leaves Nicodemus utterly at a loss.
Now the Lord comes to the answerof Nicomedus’question, and tells
Nicodemus three specific things. First, in answerto Nicodemus’question,
“how can a man be born again?”, He explains briefly the process.Second, he
declares againthe utter necessityofthe new birth, in answerto the second
part of Nicodemus’question, “cana man enter againinto his mother’s
womb?” And third, he reveals that, though men can know the process,and
can understand the necessity, yet there’s still much about the new birth they
will never understand. There is a mystery there, and one must be content to
acceptthe mystery.
Now notice what Jesus said,
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly I sayto you unless one is born of waterand of
the spirit, he cannotenter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the
flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. Do not marvel that
I said to you that you must be born anew. The wind blows where it will and
you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it
goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Jesus explains to Nicodemus that the Kingdom is gained only by new birth,
and that new birth cannotcome except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit.

Now unfortunately, in reading our Bibles many, many people forget that the
Orientals love to deal in figurative language. Theirs is a very exactlanguage,
but we need to be constantlybearing in mind that often their words are
written figuratively. This is one of the problems that people have with this
passage. In fact, all the way through the gospelofJohn, people had problems
with our Lord’s figurative language. In the previous chapter, you remember,
He had said to the Jews:“Destroythis temple and in three days I will raise it
up.” And what did they think Jesus meant? Brick and mortar. They said,
“well, it took forty-six years for this temple to be built, and you’re going to
raise it up in three days? So John’s gospelexplains that he spoke of the temple
of his body; he was using a figurative term.
In the next chapter, chapter four, our Lord saidto the woman at the well: “If
you knew who it is that is speaking to you, you’d have askedof Him and He
would have given you living water.” And what did she think he meant?
Plumbing! She said, “Why, Lord, I have to come to the well and draw. How
are you going to arrange that I have living water, so I don’t have to come here
to the well and draw?” But of course Jesus is speaking of the Water of Life,
which is describedall the way through the Gospelof John.
Now here, when He says, “Exceptthe man be born of waterand of the Spirit,”
many people read this word “water” andall they canthink of is “baptism.”
This always reminds me of those people who go around, you know, with
witching wands, looking for water. Wheneverthere is waterunder the
ground, supposedly the wand begins to twitch, and to slightly turns down.
Some people read their Bibles that way. Whereverit says, “water,” downgoes
their wand that says “baptism!” Now, here this is not that kind of water; this
is a symbol. Both the “water” and the “Spirit” are meant to be symbols. In
fact, I am convincedthat this passageshould properly be translated, “Truly I
say to you, unless one is born of waterand the wind, he cannotenter into the
Kingdom of God.” -- Waterand wind.
Mostof you know that I understand the Greek wordfor wind and spirit to be
the same word, “pneuma.” We fill our tires with pneuma. That’s not spirit, is
it? No, it’s wind in our pneumatic tire! And this is the word he uses here: The
waterand the wind – two symbols. Jesus doesn’texplain these to Nicodemus;

I don’t think he neededto, for Nicodemus knew what Jesus meant. The water
is a symbol of the Word of God, it’s a cleansing agent. Nicodemus, knowing
the Scriptures, would have known that verse in Psalm 119:“Where with all
shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy
word.” The word “water” was usedas a symbol of the cleansing effectofthe
Word of God in the Old Testament. So Jesus didn’t need to explain these, but
He said this is the way – the waterand the wind.
Then in verses 6 and 7 He declares the absolute necessityofthis: “Do not
marvel that this which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of
the Spirit is Spirit. Do not marvel that I saidto you, ‘you must be born
anew.’” This is in answer, ofcourse, to Nicomedus’question, “Cana man
enter his mother’s womb again?” In effect, Jesus is saying, “If you could, it
wouldn’t do you any good. You’d be just the same as you were before. That
which is born of the flesh is always flesh, and no matter what you do, it
remains flesh. And flesh cannotenter the Kingdom of God.”
In other words, in our condition as we are when we are born into this natural
human life, we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. No man is able to. Why
not? Well, because ourlives are flesh-centered, and flesh-comfortedand flesh-
controlled. What is the philosophy of the flesh? I think we can answerthat in
a few burning words from Jesus’Sermon on the Mount. Our Lord asked,
“What shall we eat? What shall we drink? Where with all shall we be
clothed?” That’s what the flesh thinks of, isn’t it? “How shall we spend our
time until it’s time to think about what shall we eat, and what shall we drink,
and wherewithall shall we be clothed?” And that’s the whole of the flesh.
You can amplify that to include all the night clubs and all the entertainment
media, all the highly cultured engagements and programs of our day, or all
the finest restaurants. These are but the fleeting concerns of the flesh: What
shall I eat? What shall I wear? Wherewithall shall I be clothed? And what
shall I drink? And so on … it all is spent without any knowledge ofGod,
without any love of God, without obedience to God.
This is why a man has to be born again. Something must happen to change
our life from being flesh-centeredto being Spirit-centered, God-centered.

Instead of continually thinking about ourself and the needs of the body in all
of its manifestations, and how to satisfy it, life needs to be changed. This
doesn’t mean we need to reform, or become more religious, or give up
something, or turn overa new leaf, or try harder, because it would still be
flesh. You canbaptize the flesh, chastise it, disguise it, advertise it, civilize it,
pasteurize it; it’s still the flesh. Nothing changes.
It’s like trying to change some of our natural abilities. Some people are born
with a wonderful singing voice, like our friend Don Johnson. I was born with
a very poor singing voice, and no training seems to be able to help. I used to
sing in a choir in church, until one day I missed it, and someone remarked
that they’d wondered if we’d gotten the organfixed. Nobody has ever said
that my voice was very heavenly, but they did say it was rather unearthly.
That’s the closestI’ve come to a compliment in that respect. And all the
training in the world can’t give me a better voice. I just don’t have it, and
neither does the flesh. It cannot please God.
As we’re born, naturally, no amount of knowledge, no amount of training or
of education canchange this self-centeredness,this flesh-centerednessoflife.
That’s why Jesus said to Nicodemus, “It ought to be obvious to you, marvel
not. Don’t wonderat this.” If man is by nature flesh-centered, and blind to the
things of God, if no amount of religious cultivation canchange him, then his
deepestneed is obviously to be born again, to start over on another level.
“Marvelnot that I said unto thee you must be born again.”
I remember somebodyonce said to John Wesley:“Mr. Wesleywhy do you
always talk about being born againwhenever you preach? Why is it that
whereveryou go, you keepsaying you must be born again?” And Wesley
lookedat him and said: “Becauseyou must be born again.” There’s no other
answerto this.
Now in verse 8, our Lord goes onto declare the mystery of the new birth.
The wind blows where it will and you hear the sound of it but you do not
know whence it comes or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of
the Spirit.

Here Jesus explains why he previously used the wind as a symbol for the
Spirit – it’s because the wind has some unique characteristics – it blows
whereverit wants to. Wind is sovereignin this respect, and so is the Spirit. No
one directs the wind. Isn’t it amazing that with all the marvelous scientific
progress that we’ve made in these last few decades, and with all that man has
learned throughout the rolling centuries of time, we still don’t know how to
direct the wind any better than we did centuries and centuries ago?
The wind is sovereign;it blows where it wants to. The wind is invisible. It’s
unseen, yet it’s real. No one denies its existence, yetno one sees it. We see its
effects, but we do not see the wind itself. So it is with the Spirit. The wind is
inscrutable. Ultimately it defies our explanation. Oh, we think we know
something about the weather, and as Mark Twainonce put it, “Everyone talks
about the weather, but no one does anything about it.” We try to, and we’re
making a few feeble efforts in that respect, but we still do not know where the
wind starts or where it will end.
But the winds are sovereign, invisible, and mysterious, and so it is with the
Spirit. No one knows where the Spirit is going to be next. No one knows who
He will be speaking to. It may be someone high or someone low, someone
cultured or someone very simple, we don’t know. We can’t see Him, and
though we can trace His actions, we can’t predict Him. There’s something
mysterious about the work of the Spirit.
So, to this intellectual who believes that man can understand the whole
process, andwho is unwilling to commit himself until he understands that
process, Jesus says, “Nicodemus, if you want to have a part in the Kingdom of
God, you must be committed to something that will change you, and you will
never be able to understand it.” Now that’s a tremendous challenge, isn’t it?
Here Nicodemus breaks in with his third question. In verse 9 we read,
Nicodemus said to him: How can this be? Now, the first time, Nicodemus
asked, “HOW canthese things be?” … his emphasis was on the “how” –
what’s the process? Butnow, this is a question of doubt … “CAN these things
can be? How can it be this way?”

There’s a touch of irony in our Lord’s answer. Canyou see the little smile
playing about his lips as he says, “Nicodemus, are you THE Masterin Israel,
the teacherin Israel, and you don’t know these things?” You see, Jesus
touches him right on the spot in which he takes the most pride, in his
intellectual knowledge. He was a teacher – “THE” teacher, the original word
said. “Art thou the teacherof Israel, and you don’t even understand these
things?” And then Jesus truly, truly gives his own credentials for speaking so
authoritatively.
Truly, truly I say to you, we speak ofwhat we know and bear witness of what
we have seenbut you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly
things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly
things? No one has ascendedinto heavenbut He who descendedfrom heaven,
the Sonof Man.
In other words, he’s saying:
I’m an eyewitness to what I am talking about. No man has ever ascendedup
into the heavens to bring back the answerthat you’re seeking for, in answerto
your question, but I came down for that purpose. No man has ever plumbed
into the mysteries of God, no one has analyzed God’s workings with human
life to the degree that he can answerthe question you seek, but that’s what I
came for. I came to unfold God’s mysteries, and to revealHis purposes. I
know what I am talking about. I’m an eyewitness.Nicodemus, becauseyou
are not born again, you cannot understand what I am talking to you about.
Why, I have even talkedto you about earthly things, wind, water, fire, flesh,
and so on, and you don’t even understand those things. How can I then
explain to you about heavenly things?
Isn’t this amazing? This is what Paul says too, isn’t it? – “Now let the natural
man receive not the things of the Spirit of God. Neither CAN he know them,
because they are foolishness unto him.” It does look foolish to many –
certainly many intellectuals – that we Christians saythat, by believing a story
of historical facts, much of which can even be verified, and by “receiving” a
person, that our whole life canbe changed, that the whole basis of our own

knowledge is changed, and that we become different people. They shake their
heads and say, “Ridiculous, absurd, I don’t understand it. I don’t believe it.”
But then Christ answeredmore of Nicodemus’question. Jesus neverleaves an
honest question unanswered. Nicodemus had asked, “Tellme at leasthow can
these things be?” And Jesus answered, “As Moseslifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoeverbelieves in Him
may have eternal life.” Now Nicodemus could know all about the serpent in
the wilderness. You know that story, written in Numbers 21, about how the
poison serpents came in the camp and bit the Israelites. Whenat last they
came to Moses and askedforrelief, Moses wentto the Lord. The Lord said,
“Make them a brazen serpent out of brass, and put it on a pole (a ridiculous
thing to do), and tell the people that when they are bitten by the snake, they
are to look at that serpent and they will live.” That’s all, just a look. No
treatment, just look, and they’ll live.
Now notice how this relates to what has been going on. Our Lord had
previously said that the process ofthe new birth was brought about by
believing the Word, symbolized by the water, and obeying the law of the
Spirit, symbolized by the wind. Now He explains what that Word is: “The Son
of Man must be lifted up,” he says. Thatis a description of the cross, and the
Scripture tells us that the powerof the cross is the powerof God. So there will
be a lifting up of Jesus on the cross, andin that lifting up, in that message, in
what that means and what it stands for, is God’s word to those who are
spiritually dead. When one believes that greatmystery – that the Spirit of
God, like the inscrutable, invisible wind, will enter the heart of one so
believing, and will communicate to him the very life of God – he will possess
eternal life, and he will be born again.
This last week onvacationI was down in Newport Beach, and a friend very
kindly loanedme his sailboat, and I went sailing. I had quite a time getting the
sails on, didn’t know which one was upside down or backwards orforwards,
but I finally made it. And we got out on the oceanand were sailing along at a
nice clip, when it became time to go back. And just as we turned around the
wind died, for some unexplained reasonin its sovereignty, and we were left
becalmed. We could do nothing but wait for the wind to blow; that’s all. We

had no other choice but to wait for the wind to blow. We didn’t know where it
would come from or when it would come. We were not prepared to argue with
it when it came. We didn’t even understand much about it. But we were
prepared to obey it.
This is what Jesus was saying to this intellectualwho askedhow he can be
born again. Jesus told him, simply obey the law of the Spirit, even though you
don’t understand it. Hoist your sail. Believe in the mystery of that lifting up of
Jesus. Trustyourself to Him, and the breath of God will begin to fill your soul.
It will blow upon the sailof your life, silently, invisibly, quietly, but with
powerand force, and you’ll be born again.
It’s a greatmystery, isn’t it? I don’t know how I was born again. It happened
when I was a boy of some ten years of age. I can tell you the outward
circumstances, but what happened I don’t know. Do you know, when you
were born again, how it happened? How God beganto take my flesh-centered
life and make me hate the thing I once loved, and love the thing I once hated, I
don’t know how. But He did it when I believed on Jesus.
If you’ve not yet begun this life in Christ, or if you’re dealing with someone
who has not yet begun this new life, you cansimply say to yourself or to them,
“right where you are, without sign or sound, without a word to a friend or
neighbor, you canobey the law of the Spirit, hoist the sail of your faith,
believe in the lifting up of Jesus onthe Cross, andyou’ll be born again, to that
wonderful filling of the soul by the breath, the wind, of God.”
Prayer
Our Father, we’ve been dealing in the realm of mystery tonight. We confess
our ignorance – how little we understand it, yet how true, how marvelous this
mystery is. But all through these running twenty centuries, men and women,
some of mighty intellect, most with very simple, child-like faith, have quietly
believed in the lifting up – the mystery of the lifting up – of Jesus, and they’ve
been born again. We thank you for it. We pray You will help us in dealing
with others, that we may know how to bring them to this awarenessofthis
marvelous change You alone bring in the human heart. In Christ’s name,
Amen.

Seeing Jesus as anIntellect
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook
53
Share to Twitter
Share to Print
Share to Email
Share to More
8
Who is Jesus? The question has been around as long as Jesus has!From the
time that Jesus beganministering; people have been asking "Who is this

man?" Jesus is portrayed many ways in the Bible. Some of His titles in the
Bible include:
Savior
Messiah
The Lamb of God
The Light of the World
The SecondAdam
The Son of God
The Word made flesh
Lord of Lords
King of kings
Of course, people continue to try and add dimensions to Jesus that they find
relevant. Recentbook titles that invoke Jesus include Jesus:CEO, Jesus is my
Superhero, Jesus the Prophet of Allah, Jesus the Rebel, Jesus the Outlaw, and
The GoodMan Jesus & the Scoundrel Christ. These are simply examples of
people trying to see Jesus as a reflection of their highest ideals;even the
former head of the SovietUnion,Mikhail Gorbachev, calledJesus "the first
socialist"![1]Obviously, people view Jesus through the lens of their
assumptions and what they want Him to be.
Do Christians miss aspects ofwho Jesus is by our assumptions?
Even Christians who seek to properly understand Jesus canoverlook aspects
of who Jesus is because of their preconceptions. IfI gave 100 people a blank
sheetof paper and askedthem to write their top ten attributes of Jesus, I
would get many answers. I'm sure severalwould repeatsome of the titles I've
listed above. But I doubt that I would getone "Jesus is an intellectual" or
Jesus is a master logician". The conceptof Jesus as a logicianis not any
strangerthan Jesus as a mastercarpenter, Jesus as teacher, Jesus as CEO, yet
we never seemto equate Jesus with intelligence.

Why not?
Jesus relates to the Intellectual
Simply put, the modern church has not placed a sufficient value on
intelligence as a necessarymeans for worshiping God. We tend to divorce
concepts offaith and rational thought. Faith is seenas "spiritual" while
knowledge is seenas "worldly." We believe Jesus was sinlessand a champion
of the downtrodden and we seek to do likewise. ButJesus also commanded us
to love our God with all our minds (Luke 10:27)and He modeled this when He
engagedwith those who would question His actions.
USC professorof Philosophy Dallas Willard captures the idea of this concept
well when he says:
"In our culture and among Christians as well, Jesus Christ is automatically
disassociatedfrom brilliance or intellectual capacity. Notone in a thousand
will spontaneouslythink of him in conjunction with words such as "well-
informed," "brilliant," or "smart."[2]
Dallas Willard goes on to write:
"Often, it seems to me, we see and hear his deeds and words, but we don't
think of him as one who knew how to do what he did or who really had logical
insight into the things he said. We don't automatically think of him as a very
competent person. He multiplied the loaves and fishes and walkedon water,
for example--but, perhaps, he didn't know how to do it, he just used mindless
incantations or prayers. Or he taught on how to be a really goodperson, but
he did not have moral insight and understanding. He just mindlessly rattled
off words that were piped in to him and through him. Really?"[3]
But canwe seriouslyimagine that Jesus couldbe Lord if He were not smart?
If He were divine, would He be dumb? Or uninformed? Once you stop to
think about it, how could Jesus be what Christians take Him to be in other
respects and not be the best informed and most intelligent personof all: the

smartestperson who everlived, bringing us the best information on the most
important subjects.
In fact, John's gospelstarts by identifying Jesus as the "Logos."ManyBibles
translate that a "word" but the implication of Logos is not merely a word but
an intelligent, rational thought. Logos is the root of our word logic and Jesus
as the Logos is the embodiment of logic. He used is throughout His ministry.
His aim in utilizing logic was not to win battles, but to achieve understanding
or insight in His audience, so He'd challenge the woman at the wellor have
the twelve disciples pick up twelve baskets ofleftovers after He fed 5,000,
trying to help them draw conclusions from His actions. (He even chided the
disciples for not doing so.)
The church today needs to begin seeing this missing aspectofJesus'nature.
We complain and lament that our institutions of higher learning have kicked
God out of the classroom, but has the church kickedthe professorout of the
pew? Do we never offer any kind of vigorous intellectualmessage so a PhD
could look forward to church as a time of intellectualstimulation? Do we
waterdown our messagesso much that we never seek to stretchour
congregations evenjust a bit, to make them a little bit smarter? Do we believe
that Jesus was the smartestman who ever lived? And will we seek to love God
with all of our minds as well as with our hearts, all our souls and all our
strength? http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2013/07/seeing-jesus-as-
intellect.html
Jesus The Logician

Christian Scholar's Review, 1999,Vol. XXVIII, #4, 605-614. Also available in
The GreatOmission, San Francisco:HarperCollins, 2006;and Taking Every
Thought Captive, edited by DonKing, Abilene Christian University Press,
2011.
ABSTRACT:In understanding how discipleship to Jesus Christ works, a
major issue is how he automaticallypresents himself to our minds. It is
characteristic ofmost 20th century Christians that he does not automatically
come to mind as one of greatintellectual power:as Lord of universities and
researchinstitutes, of the creative disciplines and scholarship. The Gospel
accounts ofhow he actually worked, however, challenge this intellectually
marginal image of him and help us to see him at home in the bestof academic
and scholarlysettings of today, where many of us are calledto be his
apprentices.
_________________________________________________
Few today will have seenthe words "Jesus"and "logician" put togetherto
form a phrase or sentence, unless it would be to deny any connectionbetween
them at all. The phrase "Jesus the logician" is not ungrammatical, any more
than is "Jesus the carpenter." But it 'feels'upon first encounterto be
something like a categorymistake or error in logicaltype, such as "Purple is
asleep," or"More people live in the winter than in cities," or "Do you walk to
work or carry your lunch?"
There is in our culture an uneasyrelation betweenJesus and intelligence, and
I have actually heard Christians respond to my statementthat Jesus is the
most intelligent man who ever lived by saying that it is an oxymoron. Today
we automatically position him awayfrom (or even in opposition to) the
intellect and intellectual life. Almost no one would considerhim to be a
thinker, addressing the same issues as, say, Aristotle, Kant, Heideggeror
Wittgenstein, and with the same logicalmethod.
Now this fact has important implications for how we today view his
relationship to our world and our life--especiallyif our work happens to be

that of art, thought, researchorscholarship. How could he fit into such a line
of work, and lead us in it, if he were logically obtuse? How could we be his
disciples at our work, take him seriouslyas our teacherthere, if when we
enter our fields of technical or professionalcompetencewe must leave him at
the door? Obviously some repositioning is in order, and it may be helped
along simply by observing his use of logic and his obvious powers of logical
thinking as manifested in the Gospels ofthe New Testament.
*
Now when we speak of"Jesus the logician" we do not, of course, meanthat he
developed theories of logic, as did, for example, Aristotle and Frege. No doubt
he could have, if he is who Christians have taken him to be. He could have
provided a Begriffsschrift, or a Principia Mathematica, or alternative
axiomatizations of Modal Logic, or various completeness orincompleteness
proofs for various 'languages'. (He is, presumably, responsible for the order
that is representedthrough such efforts as these.)
He could have. Just as he could have handed Peteror John the formulas of
Relativity Physics or the Plate Tectonic theory of the earth's crust, etc. He
certainly could, that is, if he is indeed the one Christians have traditionally
takenhim to be. But he did not do it, and for reasons whichare bound to seem
pretty obvious to anyone who stops to think about it. But that, in any case, is
not my subject here. When I speak of"Jesus the logician" I refer to his use of
logicalinsights: to his mastery and employment of logicalprinciples in his
work as a teacherand public figure.
Now it is worth noting that those who do creative work or are experts in the
field of logicaltheory are not necessarilymore logicalor more philosophically
sound than those who do not. We might hope that they would be, but they
may even be illogicalin how they work out their own logicaltheories. For
some reasongreatpowers in theory do not seemto guarantee significantly
greateraccuracyin practice. Perhaps no person well informed about the
history of thought will be surprised at this statement, but for most of us it
needs to be emphasized. To have understanding of developed logicaltheory
surely could help one to think logically, but it is not sufficient to guarantee

logicalthinking and except for certain rarified casesit is not even necessary.
Logicalinsight rarely depends upon logicaltheory, though it does depend
upon logicalrelations. The two primary logicalrelations are implication
(logicalentailment) and contradiction; and their role in standard forms of
argument such as the Barbara Syllogism, Disjunctive Syllogism, Modus
Ponens and Modus Tollens--and even in strategiessuchas reductio ad
absurdum--can be fully appreciated, for practicalpurposes, without rising to
the level of theoreticalgeneralizationatall.1
To be logicalno doubt does require an understanding of what implication and
contradiction are, as well as the ability to recognize their presence orabsence
in obvious cases.But it also requires the will to be logical, and then certain
personalqualities that make it possible and actual: qualities such as freedom
from distraction, focussedattentionon the meanings or ideas involved in talk
and thought, devotion to truth, and willingness to follow the truth whereverit
leads via logicalrelations. All of this in turn makes significantdemands upon
moral character. Notjust on points such as resoluteness andcourage, though
those are required. A practicing hypocrite, for example, will not find a friend
in logic, nor will liars, thieves, murderers and adulterers. They will be
constantly alert to appearancesand inferences that may logicallyimplicate
them in their wrong actions. Thus the literary and cinematic genre of
mysteries is unthinkable without play on logicalrelations.
Those devotedto defending certain pet assumptions or practices come what
may will also have to protectthemselves from logic. All of this is, I believe,
commonly recognizedby thoughtful people. Less well understoodis the fact
that one canbe logicalonly if one is committed to being logicalas a
fundamental value. One is not logicalby chance, any more than one just
happens to be moral. And, indeed, logicalconsistencyis a significant factorin
moral character. That is part of the reasonwhy in an age that attacks
morality, as ours does, the logicalwill also be demoted or setaside--as it now
is.
Not only does Jesus notconcentrate on logicaltheory, but he also does not
spell out all the details of the logicalstructures he employs on particular
occasions.His use of logic is always enthymemic, as is common to ordinary life

and conversation. His points are, with respectto logicalexplicitness,
understated and underdeveloped. The significance ofthe enthymeme is that it
enlists the mind of the hearer or hearers from the inside, in a waythat full and
explicit statementof argument cannot do. Its rhetorical force is, accordingly,
quite different from that of fully explicated argumentation, which tends to
distance the hearerfrom the force of logic by locating it outside of his own
mind.
Jesus'aim in utilizing logic is not to win battles, but to achieve understanding
or insight in his hearers. This understanding only comes from the inside, from
the understandings one already has. It seems to "well up from within" one.
Thus he does not follow the logicalmethod one often sees in Plato's dialogues,
or the method that characterizesmostteaching and writing today. That is, he
does not try to make everything so explicit that the conclusionis forceddown
the throat of the hearer. Rather, he presents matters in such a way that those
who wish to know can find their way to, cancome to, the appropriate
conclusionas something they have discovered--whetherornot it is something
they particularly care for.
"A man convinced againsthis will is of the same opinion still." Yes, and no
doubt Jesus understood that. And so he typically aims at real inward change
of view that would enable his hearers to become significantly different as
people through the workings of their own intellect. They will have, unless they
are strongly resistantto the point of blindness, the famous "eureka"
experience, not the experience ofbeing outdone or beaten down.
*
With these points in mind, let us look at some typical scenes from the Gospels:
scenes thatare of course quite familiar, but are now to be examined for the
role that distinctively logicalthinking plays in them.
(1). ConsiderMatthew 12:1-8. This contains a teaching about the ritual law:
specificallyabout the regulations of the temple and the sabbath. Jesus and his
disciples were walking through fields of grain--perhaps wheator barley--on
the sabbath, and they were stripping the grains from the stalks with their
hands and eating them. The Pharisees accusedthem of breaking the law, of

being wrongdoers. Jesus,in response, points out that there are conditions in
which the ritual laws in question do not apply.
He brings up cases ofthis that the Pharisees alreadyconcede. One is the case
(I Samuel 21:1-6) where David, running for his life, came to the place of
worship and sacrifice supervisedby Ahimelich the priest. He askedAhimelich
for foodfor himself and his companions, but the only food available was
bread consecratedin the ritual of the offerings. This bread, as Jesus pointed
out (Matthew 12:4), was forbidden to David by law, and was to be eaten(after
the ritual) by priests alone. But Ahimelich gave it to David and his men to
satisfy their hunger. Hunger as a human need, therefore, may justify doing
what ritual law forbids.
Also, Jesus continues (secondcase), the priests every sabbath in their temple
service do more work than sabbath regulations allow: "On the sabbath the
priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are innocent." (Matthew 12:5)
It logicallyfollows, then, that one is not automatically guilty of wrongdoing or
disobedience when they do not keep the ritual observances as dictated, in case
there is some greaterneed that must be met. This is something the Pharisees
have, by implication, already admitted by accepting the rightness in the two
casesJesus referredto.
The still deeperissue here is the use of law to harm people, something that is
not God's intention. Any time ritual and compassion(e.g. forhunger) come
into conflict, God, who gave the law, favors compassion. Thatis the kind of
God he is. To think otherwise is to misunderstand Godand to casthim in a
bad light. Thus Jesus quotes the prophet Hosea:"But if you had known what
this means, 'I desire compassion, and not sacrifice', youwould not have
condemned the innocent." (Matthew 12:7; cp. 9:13) Thus the use of logic here
is not only to correctthe judgment that the disciples (the "innocent" in this
case)must be sinning in stripping the grain and eating it. It is used to draw a
further implication about God: God is not the kind of personwho condemns
those who act to meet a significant need at the expense of a relative triviality
in the law. Elsewhere he points out that the sabbath appointed by Godwas
made to serve man, not man to serve the sabbath. (Mark 2:27)

Now the case ofsabbath keeping--or, more precisely, of the ritual laws
developed by men for sabbath observance--is one that comes up overand over
in the Gospels, andit is always approachedby Jesus in terms of the logical
inconsistencyof those who claim to practice it in the manner officially
prescribed at the time. (See for example Mark 3:1-3, Luke 13:15-17, John
9:14-16, etc.)They are forcedto choose betweenhypocrisyand open
inconsistency, and he does sometimes use the word "hypocrisy" of them (e.g.
Luke 13:15), implying that they knew they were being inconsistentand
acceptedit. In fact, the very idea of hypocrisy implies logicalinconsistency.
"They say, and do not" what their saying implies. (Matthew 23:2)
And legalismwill always leadto inconsistencyin life, if not hypocrisy, for it
will eventuate in giving greaterimportance to rules than is compatible with
the principles one espouses(to sacrifice, for example, than to compassion, in
the case athand), and also to an inconsistentpractice of the rules themselves
(e.g leading one's donkey to wateron the sabbath, but refusing to have a
human being healed of an 18-year-long affliction, as in Luke 13:15-16).
(2). Another illustrative case is found in Luke 20:27-40. Here it is the
Sadducees, notthe Pharisees, who are challenging Jesus. Theyare famous for
rejecting the resurrection(vs. 27), and accordinglythey propose a situation
that, they think, is a reductio ad absurdum of resurrection. (vss. 28-33)The
law of Moses saidthat if a married man died without children, the next eldest
brother should make the widow his wife, and any children they had would
inherit in the line of the older brother. In the 'thought experiment' of the
Sadducees, the elder of sevensons died without children from his wife, the
next eldestmarried her and also died without children from her, and the next
eldestdid the same, and so on though all sevenbrothers. Then the wife died
(Small wonder!). The presumed absurdity in the case was that in the
resurrectionshe would be the wife of all of them, which was assumedto be an
impossibility in the nature of marriage.
Jesus'reply is to point out that those resurrectedwill not have mortal bodies
suited for sexualrelations, marriage and reproduction. They will have bodies
like angels do now, bodies of undying stuff. The idea of resurrectionmust not
be taken crudely. Thus he undermines the assumption of the Sadducees that

any 'resurrection'must involve the body and its life continuing exactly as it
does now. So the supposed impossibility of the woman being in conjugal
relations with all sevenbrothers is not required by resurrection.
Then he proceeds, once again, to developa teaching about the nature of God--
which was always his main concern. Taking a premiss that the Sadducees
accepted, he draws the conclusionthat they did not want. That the dead are
raised, he says, follows from God's self-descriptionto Moses atthe burning
bush. God describedhimself in that incident as "the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." (Luke 20:35 ) The Sadducees accepted
this. But at the time of the burning bush incident, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
had been long 'dead', as Jesus points out. But God is not the God of the dead.
That is, a dead person cannotsustain a relation of devotion and service to
God, nor can God keepcovenantfaith with one who no longer exists. In
covenantrelationship to God one lives. (vs. 38) One cannot very well imagine
the living God communing with a dead body or a non-existent personand
keeping covenantfaithfulness with them.
(Incidentally, those Christian thinkers who nowadays suggestthat the Godly
do not exist or are without conscious life, at least, from the time their body
dies to the time it is resurrected, might want to provide us with an
interpretation of this passage.)
(3). Yet another illustration of Jesus'obviously self-conscious use oflogic
follows upon the one just cited from Luke 20. He would occasionallyset
teaching puzzles that required the use of logic on the part of his hearers. After
the discussionofthe resurrection, the Sadducees and the other groups about
him no longer had the courage to challenge his powerful thinking. (vs. 40) He
then sets them a puzzle designedto help them understand the Messiah--for
which everyone was looking.
Drawing upon what all understood to be a messianic reference, in Psalm110,
Jesus points out an apparent contradiction: The Messiahis the son of David
(admitted by all), and yet David calls the Messiah"Lord." (Luke 20:42-43)
"How," he asks, "canthe Messiahbe David's son if David calls him Lord?"
(vs. 44) The resolutionintended by Jesus is that they should recognize that the

Messiahis not simply the son of David, but also of One higher than David, and
that he is therefore king in a more inclusive sense than political head of the
Jewishnation. (Rev. 1:5) The promises to David therefore reach far beyond
David, incorporating him and much more. This reinterpretation of David and
the Messiahwas a lessonlearnedand used well by the apostles and early
disciples. (See Acts 2:25-36, Hebrews 5:6, and Phil. 2:9-11)
(4). For a final illustration we turn to the use of logic in one of the more
didactic occasions recordedin the Gospels. The parables and stories ofJesus
often illustrate his use of logic, but we will look instead at a well known
passagefrom the Sermonon the Mount. In his teaching about adultery and
the cultivation of sexuallust, Jesus makes the statement, "If your right eye
makes you to stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for
you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be
thrown into hell," and similarly for your right hand. (Matthew 5:29-30)
What, exactly, is Jesus doing here? One would certainly be mistakenin
thinking that he is advising anyone to actuallydismember himself as a way of
escaping damnation. One must keepthe context in mind. Jesus is exhibiting
the righteousnessthat goes beyond "the righteousness ofthe scribes and
pharisees." This latter was a righteousness that took as its goalto not do
anything wrong. If not doing anything wrong is the goal, that could be
achievedby dismembering yourself and making actions impossible. What you
cannot do you certainly will not do. Remove your eye, your hand, etc.,
therefore, and you will roll into heavena mutilated stump. The price of
dismemberment would be small compared to the rewardof heaven. That is
the logicalconclusionforone who held the beliefs of the scribes and the
pharisees. Jesus is urging them to be consistentwith their principles and do in
practice what their principles imply. He reduces their principle--that
righteousness lies in not doing anything wrong--to the absurd, in the hope that
they will forsake theirprinciple and see and enter the righteousnessthat is
"beyond the righteousness ofthe scribes and pharisees"--beyond, where
compassionorlove and not sacrifice is the fundamental thing. Jesus, of
course, knew that if you dismembered yourself you could still have a hateful
heart, toward God and toward man. It wouldn't really help toward

righteousness atall. That is the basic thing he is teaching in this passage.
Failure to appreciate the logic makes it impossible to gethis point.
*
These illustrative scenes from the Gospels will already be familiar to any
student of scripture. But, as we know, familiarity has its disadvantages. My
hope is to enable us to see Jesus ina new light: to see him as doing intellectual
work with the appropriate tools of logic, to see him as one who is both at home
in and the masterof such work.
We need to understand that Jesus is a thinker, that this is not a dirty word but
an essentialwork, and that his other attributes do not preclude thought, but
only insure that he is certainly the greatestthinker of the human race:"the
most intelligent personwho ever lived on earth." He constantly uses the power
of logicalinsight to enable people to come to the truth about themselves and
about God from the inside of their ownheart and mind. Quite certainly it also
played a role in his own growth in "wisdom." (Luke 2:52)
Often, it seems to me, we see and hear his deeds and words, but we don't think
of him as one who knew how to do what he did or who really had logical
insight into the things he said. We don't automatically think of him as a very
competent person. He multiplied the loaves and fishes and walkedon water,
for example--but, perhaps, he didn't know how to do it, he just used mindless
incantations or prayers. Or he taught on how to be a really goodperson, but
he did not have moral insight and understanding. He just mindlessly rattled
off words that were piped in to him and through him. Really?
This approachto Jesus may be because we think that knowledge is human,
while he was divine. Logic means works, while he is grace. Did we forget
something there? Possiblythat he also is human? Or that grace is not opposed
to effort but to earning? But human thought is evil, we are told. How could he
think human thought, have human knowledge? So we distance him from
ourselves, perhaps intending to elevate him, and we elevate him right out of
relevance to our actual lives--especiallyas they involve the use of our minds.
That is why the idea of Jesus as logical, ofJesus the logician, is shocking. And
of course that extends to Jesus the scientist, researcher, scholar, artist, literary

person. He just doesn't'fit' in those areas. Todayit is easierto think of Jesus
as a "TV evangelist" than as an author, teacheror artist in the contemporary
context. But now really!--if he were divine, would he be dumb, logically
challenged, uninformed in any area? Would he not instead be the greatestof
artists or speakers? Paulwas only being consistentwhen he told the
Colossians "all the treasures of wisdomand knowledge are concealedin him."
(2:3) Except for what?
There is in Christian educationalcircles today a greatdeal of talk about
"integrationof faith and learning." Usually it leads to little solid result. This is
in part due to the factthat it is, at this point in time, an extremely difficult
intellectual task, which cannotbe accomplishedby ritual language and the
pooh-poohing of difficulties. But an even deeper cause ofthe difficulty is the
way we automatically tend to think of Jesus himself. It is not just in what we
say about him, but in how he comes before out minds: how we automatically
position him in our world, and how in consequencewe positionourselves. We
automatically think of him as having nothing essentially to do with 'profane'
knowledge, withlearning and logic, and therefore find ourselves 'on our own'
in such areas.
We should, I believe, understand that Jesus would be perfectly at home in any
professionalcontextwhere goodwork is being done today. He would, of
course, be a constantrebuke to all the proud self-advancementand the
contemptuous treatment of others that goes onin professionalcircles. In this
as in other respects, ourprofessions are aching for his presence. If we truly
see him as the premier thinker of the human race--and who else would be
that?--then we are also in position to honor him as the most knowledgeable
person in our field, whateverthat may be, and to ask his cooperationand
assistancewitheverything we have to do.
Catherine Marshallsomewhere tells of a time she was trying to create a
certain designwith some drapes for her windows. She was unable to get the
proportions right to form the design she had in mind. She gave up in
exasperationand, leaving the scene, beganto mull the matter over in prayer.
Soonideas as to how the design could be achieved beganto come to her and

before long she had the complete solution. She learned that Jesus is maestro of
interior decorating.
Such stories are familiar from many areas ofhuman activity, but quite rare in
the areas ofart and intellect. For lack of an appropriate understanding of
Jesus we come to do our work in intellectual, scholarlyand artistic fields on
our own. We do not have confidence (otherwise knownas faith) that he canbe
our leaderand teacherin matters we spend most of our time working on.
Thus our efforts often fall far short of what they should accomplish, and may
even have less effectthan the efforts of the Godless, because we undertake
them only with "the arm of the flesh." Our faith in Jesus Christrises no
higher than that. We do not see him as he really is, maestro of all goodthings.
*
Here I have only been suggestive ofa dimension of Jesus that is commonly
overlooked. This is no thorough study of that dimension, but it deserves such
study. It is one of major importance for a healthy faith in him. Especially
today, when the authoritative institutions of our culture, the universities and
the professions,omit him as a matter of course. Once one knows what to look
for in the Gospels, however, one will easilysee the thorough, careful and
creative employment of logic throughout his teaching activity. Indeed, this
employment must be identified and appreciatedif what he is saying is to be
understood. Only then canhis intellectual brilliance be appreciated and he be
respectedas he deserves.
An excellentway of teaching in Christian schools wouldtherefore be to
require all students to do extensive logicalanalyses ofJesus'discourses. This
should go hand in with the other ways of studying his words, including
devotional practices suchas memorization or lectio divina, and the like. It
would make a substantial contribution to the integrationof faith and learning.
While such a concentrationon logic may sound strange today, that is only a
reflectionon our current situation. It is quite at home in many of the liveliest
ages ofthe church.

John Wesleyspeaks forthe broader Christian church acrosstime and space, I
think, in his remarkable treatise, "An Address to the Clergy." There he
discusses atlength the qualifications of an effective minister for Christ. He
speaks ofthe necessityof a goodknowledge ofscripture, and then adds,
"Some knowledge ofthe sciencesalso, is, to saythe least, equally expedient.
Nay, may we not say, that the knowledge ofone (whether art or science),
although now quite unfashionable, is even necessarynext, and in order to, the
knowledge ofScripture itself? I mean logic. Forwhat is this, if rightly
understood, but the art of goodsense? ofapprehending things clearly, judging
truly, and reasoning conclusively? Whatis it, viewedin anotherlight, but the
art of learning and teaching;whether by convincing or persuading? What is
there, then, in the whole compass ofscience, to be desired in comparisonof it?
"Is not some acquaintance with what has been termed the secondpart of logic
(metaphysics), if not so necessaryas this, yet highly expedient (1.) In order to
clearour apprehension(without which it is impossible either to judge
correctly, or to reasoncloselyor conclusively), by ranging our ideas under
generalheads? And (2.) In order to understand many useful writers, who can
very hardly be understood without it?"2
Later in this same treatise Wesleydeals with whether we are, as ministers,
what we ought to be. "Am I," he asks,
"a tolerable masterof the sciences? Have I gone through the very gate of
them, logic? If not, I am not likely to go much farther when I stumble at the
threshold. Do I understand it so as to be ever the better for it? To have it
always ready for use; so as to apply every rule of it, when occasionis, almost
as naturally as I turn my hand? Do I understand it at all? Are not even the
moods and figures above my comprehension? Do not I poorly endeavour to
covermy ignorance, by affecting to laugh at their barbarous names? Can I
even reduce an indirect mood to a direct; an hypothetic to a categorical
syllogism? Rather, have not my stupid indolence and laziness made me very
ready to believe, what the little wits and pretty gentlemen affirm, 'that logic is
goodfor nothing'? It is goodfor this at least(whereverit is understood), to
make people talk less;by showing them both what is, and what is not, to the

point; and how extremely hard it is to prove any thing. Do I understand
metaphysics;if not the depths of the Schoolmen, the subtleties of Scotus or
Aquinas, yet the first rudiments, the generalprinciples, of that useful science?
Have I conquered so much of it, as to clearmy apprehension and range my
ideas under proper heads; so much as enables me to read with ease and
pleasure, as well as profit, Dr. Henry Moore's Works,Malebranche'sSearch
after Truth, and Dr. Clarke's Demonstrationofthe Being and Attributes of
God?"3
I suspectthat such statements will be strange, shocking, evenoutrageous or
ridiculous to leaders of ministerial educationtoday. But readers of Wesley
and other greatministers of the past, such as JonathanEdwards or Charles
Finney, will easilysee, if they know what it is they are looking at, how much
use those ministers made of carefullogic. Similarly for the greatPuritan
writers of an earlier period, and for later effective Christians such as C. S.
Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. Theyall make relentless use of logic, and to
greatgoodeffect. With none of these greatteachers is it a matter of trusting
logic instead of relying upon the Holy Spirit. Rather, they well knew, it is
simply a matter of meeting the conditions along with which the Holy Spirit
choosesto work. In this connectionit will be illuminating to carefully examine
the logicalstructure and force of Peter's discourse onthe day of Pentecost.
(Acts 2)
*
Today, by contrast, we commonly depend upon the emotionalpull of stories
and images to 'move' people. We fail to understand that, in the very nature of
the human mind, emotion does not reliably generate beliefor faith, if it
generates itat all. Noteven 'seeing'does, unless you know what you are
seeing. It is understanding, insight, that generates belief. In vain do we try to
change peoples'heart or characterby 'moving' them to do things in ways that
bypass their understanding.
Some months ago one who is regarded as a greatteacherof homiletics was
emphasizing the importance of stories in preaching. It was on a radio
program. He remarked that a leading minister in America had told him

recently that he could preach the same series ofsermons eachyear, and
change the illustrations, and no one would notice it. This was supposed to
point out, with some humor, the importance of stories to preaching. What it
really pointed out, however, was that the cognitive contentof the sermon was
never heard--if there was any to be heard--and does not matter.
Paying carefulattention to how Jesus made use of logicalthinking can
strengthen our confidence in Jesus as master of the centers of intellect and
creativity, and canencourage us to accepthim as master in all of the areas of
intellectual life in which we may participate. In those areas we can, then, be
his disciples, not disciples of the current movements and glittering
personalities who happen to dominate our field in human terms. Proper
regard for him can also encourageus to follow his example as teachers in
Christian contexts. We canlearn from him to use logicalreasoning at its best,
as he works with us. When we teachwhat he taught in the manner he taught
it, we will see his kind of result in the lives of those to whom we minister.
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/individual/jesus-the-logician
Jesus Christ: Pioneerin Human Development
By Wayne Jackson

There is very little information in the New Testamentregarding the first
thirty years of Jesus’life upon this earth. And that is not without purpose.
The details of those early years are obviously not essentialto the divine
scheme of redemption. The fact is, the brevity of the Gospelnarratives
provides subtle evidence of biblical inspiration. Mere human authors would
have filled in the blanks with a variety of interesting matters which cater to
natural curiosity. The authenticity of Scripture is establishedby what the text
does not say, as well as by what it does say.
Both Matthew and Luke chronicle the thrilling accountof the Son of God’s
birth to a virgin whose name was Mary (Matthew 1:18-25;Luke 2:1-20). Luke
mentions the presentationof the Savior in the temple when the child was
approximately six weeks old(2:1-39; cf. Leviticus 12:1-4). Then there is that
intriguing narrative when the boy Jesus, at the age of twelve, was found in the
temple challenging the doctors of the law (Luke 2:41-51).
Following that episode, the inspired historian sums up the subsequent years of
the Lord’s development:
And Jesus advancedin wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men
(Luke 2:52).
The carefulstudent never ceasesto be awedby the factthat the Bible is so
insightful in addressing the needs of mankind. There are four areas of human
development to which every conscientious personought to give attention (as
reflectedby the growth of Christ). These are:
the intellectual,
the physical,
the social,

the spiritual.
Before exploring these four dimensions of balancedpersonal growth, two
introductory points must be made.
First, Luke records that young Jesus “advanced” in these realms. The Greek
word is prokopto, from pro (forward), and kopto (to cut). Many scholars
believe that the term originally describedthe work of wood-cutters who
clearedawaythe obstacles that impeded the progress of ancientarmies
(Liddell and Scott1869, 1348). Eventually, the word simply came to suggest
the idea of progress. Pauluses a form of the term when he contends that the
difficulties which befell him in Rome had facilitatedthe “progress” ofthe
gospel(Philippians 1:12).
It is not inappropriate to suggestthatthe example of Christ prepared the way
for our own advancement in godly maturity. The Lord was, in effect, a
“pioneer” in human development.
Second, the verb “advanced” is an imperfect tense form, which suggests a
sustainedactivity as viewed historically. The young Jesus was everdeveloping
in the areas suggestedby the text.
Intellectual Development
The Bible places considerable emphasis upon the development of the human
mind. After all, it is the mind that is createdin the very image of God himself.
It is an egregioustragedythat so many entertain the perverted notion that
intelligence and faith are mutually exclusive. C. S. Lewis once wrote: “If you
are thinking of becoming a Christian, I warn you are embarking on something
which is going to take the whole of you, brains and all.”
Christian parents must realize, now more than everbefore, the value of
providing a goodeducationfor their children. Youngsters should be taught
the basics ofeducation. Fundamental is the ability to read. So many young
people these days are leaving high schoolalmostunable to read their own
diplomas.

Parents should read to their children during their earliestyears. Little books
should be purchased for them and they should be encouragedto learn to read
skillfully. Moreover, children should be taught the techniques of sound
reasoning. Logic is the science ofthinking correctly, and it is almost a lostart.
Why do so many youngsters adopt a belief in the theory of evolution, or
wander into religious groups that are unknown to the Scriptures? Because
they do not know how to reasonwith precision, and they are bereft of a
knowledge ofthe Bible.
PhysicalDevelopment
The Scriptures do not ignore the physical aspects ofthe human being. There
are three areas upon which we should focus in a discussionof the physical
dimension of responsible people.
First, we are urged to keepour bodies pure. The body is not for fornication,
but for the Lord (1 Corinthians 6:13). Sin should not reign in our mortal
bodies; rather, our physical members are to be employed as instruments of
righteousness (Romans 6:12-13). Soundand sustainedinstruction in this area
is absolutely crucialin these days of rampant sexual promiscuity. It is heart-
breaking that so many Christian young people lose their virginity before
marriage.
Second, our children ought to be trained to cultivate their physical health.
Christian youth should be impressedwith the fact that their bodies are
temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19), and that there is a divine
responsibility to try to maintain goodhealth so that one may serve God as
effectively as possible. Propereating habits, exercise (whichdoes profit a little
– 1 Timothy 4:8), rest, and recreationare part of a balancedlife. Moreover,
regardless ofone’s vocationalaspiration, every youngster should be taught the
value of vigorous physical labor. A youngsterwho does not learn the value of
honest, diligent work will be crippled for life.
Third, it is not inappropriate to suggestthatclothing oneselfdecently is a part
of the saint’s physical deportment. Christian youth who adorn themselves in
apparel that is sexually suggestive are a sorry advertisement for the cause of
Jesus. Additionally, our youngsters ought to be taught to dress with dignity—

especiallywhen they are in the church assembly. It is shocking atthe number
of people who come to worship slovenly clad. Such folks have virtually no self-
respect, and precious little regard for the Saviorwho died in their behalf.
SocialDevelopment
As beings who have been fashionedin the image of God, humans are social
creatures. As the poet expressedit, “No man is an island.” People needpeople.
Responsible human beings need to know how to interact with others. It is
truly a disasterwhen one ends his or her life as a miserable recluse—asdid
Howard Hughes, for example. That tragedy was compounded by the fact that
Hughes’s grandfather was a well-knowngospelpreacher!
Children should be trained to get along well with their peers. Youngsters tend
to become self-centeredif they are not taught to share, and to be concerned
for others. Young people ought to be nurtured by their parents in developing
sacrificialand loving relationships, which ultimately cancontribute to stable
and happy marriages. Discernmentin selecting close associatesofhigh moral
characteris also a vital part of proper training (see 1 Corinthians 15:33).
At an early age children should be given domestic responsibilities. Forsome of
these tasks a small stipend might be paid, and the youngsters could be taught
to budget and manage their resources. Manyyoung people these days honestly
do not know how to govern their finances. They spend and charge as if they
possessedan unlimited source of revenue. If youngsters are to be useful
servants in the Lord’s kingdom, they must learn how to be goodstewards of
those possessionswith which the Creatorhas entrusted them.
Spiritual Development
Clearly, the most neglecteddimension of human development is that of
spiritual growth. It is an incredible phenomenon that so many parents—who
are anxious about their children’s intellectual, physical, and socialwelfare—
are so flagrantly careless aboutreligious and moral maturity. Fathers and
mothers will pressure their youngsters to make goodgrades, but will never
raise a question about Bible-study habits. Many parents, who have strict rules
about schoolattendance, dating, etc., permit their children to make their own

decisions about whether to attend worship services or not. Young people are
rarely seenduring gospelmeetings. Suchattitudes will produce a devastating
effectin the church of the future.
Parents should cultivate early within their children a love for the Bible and
God’s authority in their lives. Every child ought to memorize the names of the
books of the Bible, the major periods of biblical history, etc. Key passages
should be committed to memory. GoodBible-study libraries ought to adorn
every home. The work and welfare of the kingdom of Christ should be a
matter of daily family conversation. Church services should not be missedfor
trivial reasons (e.g., sporting events, family vacations, etc.). Children ought to
be taught that Christianity is the most important thing in life (Matthew 6:33).
The ultimate issue is this: what goodwill it have done to provide one’s
children with physical well-being, brilliant minds, and socialgracesif they are
ultimately lost? Parents needto reflectupon the example left by young Jesus,
and direct their own offspring in a similar course of living.
Jesus:The Masterof Critical Thinking
Have you ever consideredJesus Christ, the thinker? Let’s dig into it in this
Diving Deeper!
“Does notthe eartest words, as the palate tastes its food?” Job12:11
It is easyto overlook Jesus the Thinker! Much has been written on Jesus the
Redeemer, Jesus the Healer, Jesus the Miracle Worker, Jesus the Messiah,
Jesus the Lord, etc., but the topic of Jesus as the greatestthinker of all time
doesn’t seemto get as much attention. Understanding Jesus, the Thinker, and
his use of powerful arguments can turn out to be invaluable in today’s hostile

world. The gospels dedicate an enormous amount of time and space
describing how Jesus engagedthe arguments and responded to the attacks
that were launched againsthis truth claims. In doing so, Jesus engagedin a
reasoneddefense ofthe faith using critical thinking as one of his primary
tools. As Douglas Groothuis so powerfully asserts, “WhenJesus defendedthe
crucial claims of Christianity—He was its founder, after all—He was engaging
in apologetics, oftenwith the best minds of first-century Judaism.”(1) As
Christians facing hostile arguments and attacks onour faith, there is much to
learn from a careful considerationof those encounters.
Preliminary Considerations
Jesus’engagements were undergirded by the desire to attract(not alienate)
the lost. Above the strategies andspecific critical thinking skills Jesus
employed, we find Jesus gently and respectfully seeking to persuade his
opponents. He was not out to destroy them, but rather to enlighten them.
Dallas Willard is on point when he affirms that, “Jesus’aimin utilizing logic
is not to win battles, but to achieve understanding or insight in his hearers.”
(2) This ought to be our objective as well. We are calledto demolish
arguments—notpeople! We must constantlyremind ourselves that we are not
trying to win arguments, but rather win people over to the truth of the
Gospel.
Jesus’pedagogicalstrategywas very effective. He was able to engage his
opponents in the thinking process by making them active participants instead
of passive listeners. As Willard explains,
“…he does not try to make everything so explicit that the conclusionis forced
down the throat of the hearer. Rather, he presents matters in such a way that
those who wish to know canfind their way to, can come to, the appropriate
conclusionas something they have discovered—whetheror not it is something
they particularly care for.” (3)
As an educatorI can attestto the effectivenessofthis strategy. Too oftenwe
focus, almostexclusively, on presenting strong arguments and lists of
evidences without really engaging those we are attempting to persuade.
Asking questions was one of Jesus’mostsuccessfulstrategies forgetting his

audience actively involved in what he was attempting to teach. These
questions were meant to allow his opponents to reachcertain conclusions on
their own without him having to spell it out for them. We must learn the art of
engaging people in thought and not just conversation.
Jesus was not concernedwith being politically correct, especiallywhen it came
to unmasking errors in the opinions and arguments of his opponents. Whether
he was speaking to the Pharisees orthe to a Romangovernor, he was quick to
correcterroneous thoughts and ideas. As Groothuis so clearly explains,
“Jesus engagedin extensive disputes, some quite heated, mostly with the
Jewishintellectualleaders of His day. He did not hesitate to call into account
popular opinion if it was wrong. He spoke often and passionatelyaboutthe
value of truth and the dangers of error, and He articulated arguments to
support truth and oppose error.” (4)
In an age of intolerance towards the Christian faith, we must continue to
stand firmly for truth and againsterror. We must do this, as Jesus did, with
the right attitude (gentleness andrespect)and with strong sound arguments.
Jesus was a master logician. He used a wide variety of arguments and did so
with extraordinary skill. An exhaustive review of Jesus’use of logic and
critical thinking would be a very rewarding endeavor, but it is beyond the
scope ofthis article. Nevertheless,letus considerfive examples of how Jesus
employed the various types of logicalarguments.
1) Jesus’Use of A Fortiori Arguments
Jesus oftenused a fortiori arguments. The latin phrase ‘a fortiori’ means,
“from something stronger.” These are very persuasive arguments that build
the case fora particular proposition by showing that it has even stronger
support than other related propositions commonly acceptedas true. The
structure is as follows:
Premise 1: Proposition“X” is widely accepted.
Premise 2: Support for proposition “Y” is even strongerthan the support for
proposition “X”

Conclusion: Therefore, if proposition “X” is accepted, then proposition “Y”
should be acceptedall the more.
Considerthe exchange found in Luke 13:14-16. Jesuswas continually
attackedfor supposedviolations of the Sabbath. In this passage, Jesus
presents an a fortiori argument in his defense as follows:
Premise 1: Loosening the cattle from their stall to taking them out to water on
the Sabbath is widely practiced and acceptedby the Pharisees.
Premise 2: This woman, a daughter of Abraham, (far more valuable than
cattle)has been bound by Satanfor 18 years and has also been loosedon the
Sabbath.
Conclusion:Therefore, if it is acceptable to loosenthe cattle on the Sabbath,
then it should be even more acceptable to loosena daughter of Abraham.
2) Jesus’Use of Disjunctive Syllogisms (or Argument by Elimination)
This type of argument usually consists ofa premise with two options, a second
premise denying one of the options, and a conclusion asserting the remaining
option. The idea is to eliminate all of the options until one is left as the only
possible answer. The structure is as follows:
Premise 1: Either p or q
Premise 2: Not- q
Conclusion: Therefore:p
Considerthe words of Jesus in Luke 11:23. Where Jesus confronts the
Pharisees withTWO Disjunctive Syllogismin the same verse as follows:
Premise 1: Either you are with me or you are againstme.
Premise 2: They were obviously not with him (since they were attacking him)
Conclusion: Therefore:they were againsthim.
Premise 1: Either you gather with me or you scattereth.
Premise 2: They were obviously not gathering with him

Conclusion: Therefore:they were scattering.
3) Jesus’Use of Hypothetical Syllogisms (or Chain Argument)
This type of argument consists ofthree conditional statements linked together
as follows:
Premise 1: If p then q
Premise 2: If q then r
Conclusion: Therefore:If p then r
Considerthe words of Jesus to his disciples prior to sending them out in
Matthew 11:40. He uses a Hypothetical Syllogismto explain the impact that
receiving their message wouldhave for those who believed.
Premise 1: If they receive you then they receive me.
Premise 2: If they receive me then they receive him that sent me.
Conclusion:(implied) Therefore:If they receive you then they receive him
that sent me.
4) Jesus’Use of Syllogisms
A syllogismis a three-line argument in which the premises lead to a definite
conclusion. By using deductive reasoning, the argument establishes the
conclusionwithout question. If the premises are true than the conclusionmust
also be true. A common form is known as Modus Tollens and is structured as
follows:
Premise 1: If p then q
Premise 2: Not- q
Conclusion:Therefore:not p
Considerthe words of Jesus in John 8:47 where he has been engagedin a long
series ofarguments with the scribes and Pharisees thatleads to this powerful
argument.

Premise 1: If you are of God then you heareth God’s words
Premise 2: You hear them not
Conclusion: Therefore:you are not of God
Sometimes the argument is easierto see in the paraphrase versions of the
Bible. For example, this verse reads as follows in the Living Bible:
“Anyone whose Fatheris God listens gladly to the words of God. Since you
don’t, it proves you aren’t his children.”
5) Jesus Wisdom in dealing with the Horns of a Dilemma
The Pharisees were constantly trying to trap Jesus. Theyplotted and schemed
to come up with arguments that would trap Jesus, regardless ofhis response.
This is known in philosophy as a dilemma. The argument presents two
alternatives as if they were the only options and responding with either option
gets you in trouble. That is why it is often referred to as being trapped in “the
horns” of a dilemma. They tried numerous times throughout Jesus’ministry,
but were always unsuccessfuldue to his mastery of logic and his divine
wisdom.
Considerthe passagein Matthew 22:15-22. Matthew prefaces the dialogue
with the warning in verse 15 that the Pharisees“took counselhow they might
entangle him in his talk.” (KJV). The present Jesus with a dilemma regarding
the paying of tributes (taxes) to Caesar. The two horns of the dilemma are
presentedin verse 17, “Whatthinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto
Caesar, ornot?” (KJV). If Jesus answeredthat it was lawful, then he was
recognizing that Caesarwas a higher authority than he was. If Jesus answered
no, then he would be declaring himself an enemy of Caesar. However, they
never anticipated Jesus’response. Jesus presenteda third alternative—
“Rendertherefore unto Caesarthe things which are Caesar’s;and unto God
the things that are God’s.” (22:21 KJV). As was usually the case, “they
marveled, and left him, and went their way.” (22:22 KJV). Jesus’intellectual
brilliance was enough to leave anyone, even his most ardent opponents,
speechlessandin awe.

Conclusion
We are called to always be prepared to give an answerto anyone that
demands a reasonfor the hope that is within us, but how do we go about doing
that? I think here, as in other areas ofour walk, Jesus presents a wonderful
model to follow. Jesus modeledfor us the attitude with which we are to engage
this world as well as the methodology. As Geislerand Zukeran suggest,
“Since reasonand logicalarguments were a part of Jesus’s defense, the
apologistand all Christians today should make this an area of study as they
engage in the battle of ideas.” (5)
As we endeavorto engage in this dark world with the light of God’s Truth, we
must be careful not to skip the mind and focus only on the heart, as is so often
the case.Godwants us to love Him with all of our hearts AND all of our
minds. Only then will we be truly stable in our walk with the Lord. This
should be paramount in our strategies forfulfilling our mission. Again,
Geislerand Zukeran powerfully argue,
“The mission of transforming lives and bringing people to faith in Christ does
not come by moving people emotionally; God does not bypass the mind to
speak to the heart. Logic and well-reasonedarguments are required to refute
false beliefs and turn people in the direction of truth.” (6)
Spending time with Jesus, the Thinker, and studying his use of critical
thinking, logic and powerful arguments canbe instrumental in fulfilling our
calling as Christians to engage ourworld with Truth.
FOOTNOTES
(1) Douglas Groothuis. “Jesus:Philosopherand Apologist.”
http://www.equip.org/article/jesus-philosopher-and-apologist/ Accessed,
11/25/2015.
(2) Dallas Willard. “Jesusthe Logician.” ChristianScholar’s Review, 1999,
Vol. XXVIII, #4, 605-614.

(3) Ibid.
(4) Groothuis.
(5) Norman L. Geislerand Patrick Zukeran. The Apologetics ofJesus:A
Caring Approach to Dealing with Doubters. (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks,
2009)pg. 76.
Juan Valdes
Dr. Juan Valdes is a bi-lingual speakerfor ReasonsforHope (English and
Spanish) and the seniorpastor of a Spanish-speaking congregationin Miami,
Florida. He has taught Theology, Bible and Apologetics atthe seminary level
in both English and Spanish and speaks regularlyacrossthe country and
internationally at Pastor’s Conferences,Youth Conferences, Apologetics
Conferences andlocalchurch events. Juan, his wife Daisyand their children,
Juan Elias and Jessicaserve in multiple areas of ministry in Miami, Florida.
Jesus:Philosopher and Apologist
Jun 9, 2009
Article ID: DJ700 | By: Douglas Groothuis
This article first appeared in the Christian ResearchJournal, volume 25,
number 2 (2002). Forfurther information or to subscribe to the Christian
ResearchJournalgo to: http://www.equip.org
Contrary to the views of critics, Jesus Christwas a brilliant thinker, who used
logicalarguments to refute His critics and establishthe truth of His views.
When Jesus praisedthe faith of children, He was encouraging humility as a

Jesus was intellectual

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was intellectual

Similar to Jesus was intellectual (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was intellectual