I've been thinking recently about Jesus as a thinker who is to be reckoned with as a participant in the history of philosophy. Below are some resources and quotations relevant to this issue.
1. Douglas Groothuis wrote a small book for the Wadsworth Philosophers Series--On Jesus.
Jesus did not build a philosophical system in the same sense that Spinoza or Hegel did. Wittgenstein, arguably the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century, did not build a system at all, although he developed a distinctive philosophical method, which in some ways attempts to dissolve philosophical questions. But the fact that Jesus did not “build” a philosophical system does not preclude the possibility that he thought in terms of a well-ordered and logically consistent account of reality and argued rationally with those who disputed it. If he thought and spoke in this manner, he was a philosopher indeed—and the most influential one in Western history. (p. 8)
Chapter three of Groothuis' book is entitled "Jesus' Use of Argument" and it examines the kinds of logical arguments that Jesus utilized. For example, Groothuis notes that Jesus employed a fortiori arguments as well as reductio ad absurdum arguments. Jesus could and did appeal to evidence and was adept at escaping the horns of a dilemma when in the midst of argument.
In chapter five--"Jesus' Epistemology"--Groothuis furthers speaks of Jesus' reasoning and approach to logic.
Jesus reasons from the Scriptures and he reasons against his critics. When presented with an apparently irresolvable dilemma concerning the resurrected state or political allegiance (Matthew 22:15-22), he finds a tertium quid that avoids either horn of the dilemma. In this, and in all his other use of argument, Jesus implicitly endorses the law of noncontradiction as a necessary test for truth. A statement and its negation cannot both be true in the same way at the same time. Jesus never accepts a proposition and its negation as both true; nor does he revel in irreconcilable paradoxes as a way to disarm rational thought and make room for faith. Jesus at no time invokes an irresolvable paradox when pressed into a logical corner--although he will often employ a paradox to give a memorable ending to a pertinent teaching. When accused of holding contradictory teachings or of opposing the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus argues in order to resolve the apparent contradiction and vindicate his teaching.
Nevertheless, some interpreters attempt to make Jesus into a Jewish Zen-Master or guru by claiming that he employed mind-stopping contradictions. They compare several paradoxical sayings of Jesus to Zen koans. A koan is a riddle having to do with a logical impossibility; it is given to a Zen student in order to induce the student to transcend normal logical analysis and rational processes. Zen epistemology involves transcending all dualities and antitheses through various practices, such as contemplating koans and sat-zen (meditating on a blank wall for hours) in order to attain the state of "no-mind." A famous Zen koan is, "What is the sound of one hand [clapping]?" This question has no resolution, because one hand cannot clap (in any standard sense of clapping).
Jesus utters statements that are prima facie similar to koans, such as, "But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first" (Matthew 19:30). But Jesus' use of paradox is pedagogical, not illogical. It has nothing to do with Zen or any other kind of mystical practice that abandons rational categories as a means to enlightenment. Jesus' paradoxes are given not as enigmas but as memorable conclusions to his teachings. They have an intellectual context and communicate propositional knowledge. The statement, "Many who first will be last, and many who are last will be first" is not affirming that "first equals last" (a contradiction), as would a Zen koan. Rather, Jesus is speaking of the final reward of those who give up much in this life to follow him. The reward more than compensates for the losses they experience. Therefore, many who are "first" (or fortunate in this life) will be "last" (or unfortunate in the next), and vice versa. Jesus' phrasing is paradoxical, and, therefore, pedagogically provocative, but it has a determinative and intelligible meaning (see Matthew 19:16-30). (pp. 52-53)
2. Dallas Willard has a famous essay titled, "Jesus the Logician" which appeared in the Christian Scholar's Review vol. 28, no. 4 (1999), 605-614. It was also reprinted in Willard's collection of essays The Great Omission (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2006), pp. 180-195.
There is in our culture an uneasy relation between Jesus and intelligence, and I have actually heard Christians respond to my statement that Jesus is the most intelligent man who ever lived by saying that it is an oxymoron. Today we automatically position him away from (or even in opposition to) the intellect and intellectual life. Almost no one would consider him to be a thinker, addressing the same issues as, say, Aristotle, Kant, Heidegger or Wittgenstein, and with the same logical method. (p. 180)
Now when we speak of “Jesus the logician” we do not, of course, mean that 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 or incompleteness proofs for various ‘languages’. (He is, presumably, responsible for the order that is represented through such efforts as these.)
He could have. Just as he could have handed Peter or 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 taken him to be. But he did not do it, and for reasons which are 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 logical insights: to his mastery and employment of logical principles in his work as a teacher and public figure. (p. 181)
Not only does Jesus not concentrate on logical theory, but he also does not spell out all the details of the logical structures he employs on particular occasions. His use of logic is always enthymemic, as is common to ordinary life and conversation. His points are, with respect to logical explicitness, understated and underdeveloped. The significance of the enthymeme is that it enlists the mind of the hearer or hearers from the inside, in a way that full and explicit statement of argument cannot do. Its rhetorical force is, accordingly, quite different from that of fully explicated argumentation, which tends to distance the hearer from 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 logical method one often sees in Plato’s dialogues, or the method that characterizes most teaching and writing today. That is, he does not try to make everything so explicit that the conclusion is forced down the throat of the hearer. Rather, he presents matters in such a way that those who wish to know can find their way to, can come to, the appropriate conclusion as something they have discovered--whether or not it is something they particularly care for. (p. 183)
We need to understand that Jesus is a thinker, that this is not a dirty word but an essential work, and that his other attributes do not preclude thought, but only insure that he is certainly the greatest thinker of the human race: “the most intelligent person who ever lived on earth.” He constantly uses the power of logical insight to enable people to come to the truth about themselves and about God from the inside of their own heart and mind. Quite certainly it also played a role in his own growth in “wisdom.” (Luke 2:52) (p. 189)
3. J. P. Moreland was deeply influenced by Dallas Willard and he also wrote a short piece on Jesus and logic: "How Did Jesus Argue? Jesus & Logic" which begins with the following words:
Today there is widespread indifference to, even downright hostility towards logic and the fundamental laws that govern it. We are sometimes told that logic is a Western construction invented by DWEM’s (Dead White European Males such as Aristotle), that in a postmodern world, story and narrative have replaced a cold-hearted, logical approach to life, and that Jesus was a prophet for the common man, not a logician for the “wise and intelligent.”
I could not disagree more. Logic comes from the very nature of God Himself, its employment need not be cold and impersonal, it can be expressed through story and narrative as C. S. Lewis’s works of fiction nicely illustrate, and Jesus used logic with “the common man” every bit as much as he did with the “wise and intelligent.” In what follows, I shall unpack these assertions by doing two things: present a primer on logic and God, and explain and illustrate Jesus’ skill in using logic.
The article ends in this way, looking at Jesus' example of logically reasoning:
Consider Matthew 22:23-33 where the Sadducees raise a reductio ad absurdum argument against Jesus. In such an argument you grant your opponent’s premise, show that it leads to an absurd conclusion, and argue, therefore, that the granted premise should be denied. The argument is also an example of a dilemma syllogism (see below): Formally, the Sadducees argue thusly: If P (there is life after death), then either Q (adultery is permissible in the afterlife) or R (polygamy is permissible in the afterlife). Not-Q (adultery is not permissible, period) and not-R (polygamy is not permissible, period). Therefore, not-P (there is no life after death).
Grasping the heart of this syllogism, Jesus skillfully notes that the either/or dilemma his opponents have placed on him (either adultery or polygamy is permissible in the afterlife) both make an assumption: There is marriage in the afterlife. They argue: If there is marriage in the afterlife, then either there is adultery or polygamy. Jesus denies that there is marriage in the afterlife (Matthew 22:39), and in one simple step, he undermines the dilemma (either adultery or polygamy) they have raised against life after death.
In Mark 11:27-33, Jesus himself uses a dilemma syllogism. Put formally, such a syllogism goes like this: (1) (If P then Q) and (if R the S), and (2) either P or R, then (3) either Q or S. In context, the religious leaders are challenging Jesus’ authority, and he asks, “Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?” His argument is this: (1) (If John’s baptism is from heaven, then the critics ought to believe John’s teaching about Jesus) and (If John’s baptism is from men, then the critics are in danger from the people). (2) Either John’s baptism is from heaven or from men. Then, (3) the critics should either believe John’s teaching or place themselves in danger from the people. Realizing that Jesus had successfully placed them on the horns of a nasty dilemma, they responded by saying “We don’t know from where John’s baptism came.”
To my mind, Jesus was the greatest thinker who ever lived. And while he did not come to develop a theory about logic or to teach logic as a field of study, it is clear that he was adept at employing logical forms and laws in his thinking and reasoning. We who are his followers should go and do likewise.
4. Jonathan T. Pennington's new book is appropriately titled Jesus the Great Philosopher: Rediscovering the Wisdom Needed for the Good Life (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2020).
Now we can look at their church walls. What were their decorations? Like those in our imagined megachurch, these faithful Christians also used their walls to remind worshippers of who Jesus is. The painted images in this ancient church depict Jesus in various ways, as the Good Shepherd, the Great Physician, and the Water Walker. And as a Philosopher. In fact, in all the pictures of Jesus healing, teaching, and performing miracles, he is wearing the telltale philosopher's robes, has the haircut that indicated his status as a philosopher, and is standing in the posture of a philosophy teacher. (pp. 4-6)
Pennington has the following picture inserted which is from Dura-Europas church.
Parables are powerful because they are imaginative and memorable and teach disciples to see the world in an unexpected way and invite an appropriate response in attitude and behavior--exactly what sages were all about.
Pennington then adds:
Jesus plays the role of a prophetic philosopher, a sage-prophet who is inviting people to see the world from the perspective of divine revelation that goes beyond human-centered knowledge. This prophetic emphasis does not make Jesus any less of a philosopher, but it does add an urgent edge to his teaching. Jesus regularly inserts the weighty tagline "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!" That is, "If you can understand my wisdom, then pay attention!" Jesus's teaching in aphorisms and parables would have immediately identified him as a philosopher during his own lifetime. (p. 63)
5. My own contribution to looking at how Jesus uses logic is found in my blog post "Jesus' Use of Reason in Matthew 12.22-29". Here is the post in full:
Matthew 12.22-29: Jesus’ Use of Reason
1. Setting the scene
a. There is a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute.
b. Jesus responds by healing the man “so that he spoke and saw” (v. 22).
c. The crowds are amazed and begin to draw the explanatory conclusion that Jesus might be the Son of David—the Messiah.[1]
d. The Pharisees offer another causal explanation—Jesus’ exorcistic power is from Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.
2. Jesus begins to reason about why their explanatory cause makes no sense. He points to their (a) inconsistency and (b) arbitrariness.[2]
a. Inconsistency: Jesus points to an internal inconsistency in his opponents argument in verses 25-26. Essentially Jesus argues that if Satan is casting out Satan this creates a divided kingdom. If Satan is casting out Satan and in the process is drawing people’s minds to think of God’s promises—namely the Davidic Messiah—then is a stupid plan.[3]
b. Arbitrariness: In verse 27 Jesus points to a reality the Pharisees accepted—exorcisms by their “sons.” Jesus is asking if their causal explanation of his exorcisms is consistent with the fact of other exorcisms they do accept. Jesus is thus demonstrating that their causal explanation is arbitrarily applied.[4]
3. Jesus continues to draw out his reasoning about the situation in verse 28: “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
a. This is an example of modus ponens:
i. If P then Q
ii. P
iii. Therefore, Q
b. In Jesus’ argument:
i. P = I [Jesus] cast out demons
ii. Q = the kingdom of God has come upon you
c. Jesus had defended P in verses 25-27 against the counter-explanatory claims of the Pharisees
4. The Pharisees can irrationally hold to their inconsistent and arbitrary explanation or they could attempt to take Jesus’ modus ponens argument and turn it into a modus tollens argument.
a. modus tollens
i. If P then Q
ii. ^Q
iii. Therefore, ^P
b. They could deny that the kingdom has come (^P). Therefore, whatever the explanatory cause of the exorcism it is not the case that the kingdom has come so they reject Jesus’ reasoning. It is to admit that they do not have an explanation for Jesus’ power but they refuse to give credence to Jesus’ explanation.
5. Why does Jesus draw the conclusion about the relationship between exorcism by the Spirit and the coming of the kingdom?
a. Jesus’ words in Matthew 12.29 help us to see the background of Jesus’ reasoning. Matthew 12.29 states: “Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.”
b. This language of Matthew 12.29 is an allusion to Isaiah 49.24-25:
24”Can the prey be taken from the mighty man, or the captives of a tyrant be rescued?” 25Surely, thus say the Lord, “Even the captives of the mighty man will be taken away, and the prey of the tyrant will be rescued; for I will contend with the one who contends with you, and I will save your sons."
i. Servant is both corporate (Israel—verse 3)c. Larger context of Isaiah 49 is about the “Servant.”
ii. And an individual—the Servant brings back Israel (Jacob) to God (v 5-6)
i. Isaiah 42.1 “Behold, my Servant, whom I uphold; my chosen one ind. “Servant” language in Isaiah 49 is part of larger Servant imagery in Isaiah that Jesus also appeals to in his teaching.
whom my soul delights. I have put my Spirit upon him…
1. Isaiah 42.1-3 is the passage quoted by Jesus in Matthew 12.17-21—the pericope immediately prior to the passage under consideration about Jesus’ exorcisms!
ii. Isaiah 61.1-22. The Servant who has God’s Spirit upon him is linked in Isaiah with the Spirit-anointed One in Isaiah 61.1 “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted;…”
1. “This individual parallels in the servant figure of Isa. 40-55. The anointment of the Spirit recalls 42:1…”
2. “Thus Beuken (1989) is correct in understanding Isa. 61 as an ‘interpretation’ of Isa. 40-55.”[5]
3. Isaiah 61.1-2 is quoted by Jesus in Luke 4.18-19
e. Jesus is utilizing the background material in Isaiah regarding the Spirit-anointed Servant who brings God’s kingdom.[6]
6. Jesus and the Pharisees hold certain background assumptions in common. They both formally affirm the Old Testament perspective on God, his covenants, his promises in Isaiah, etc. Jesus reasons from within these shared assumptions to show the inconsistency and arbitrariness of the Pharisees. Their explanation does not fit the evidence as situated within their shared background assumptions.
Footnotes
[1] “The question is worded in such a way as to indicate a measure of perplexity, but also to open the door to an interesting possibility.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992), 314.
[2] Douglas Groothuis sees Jesus’ answers here in verses 25-27 as an example of Jesus using a reductio ad absurdum form of argumentation. On Jesus (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Thompson Learning, 2003), 34.
[3] “It is not be presumed that Satan is stupid: the Pharisees were taking up an impossible position. Theoretically, of course, it might be argued that Satan could allow the expulsion of one demon in order to effect some diabolical purpose, but this would be met by the fact that Jesus kept on expelling demons; he carried on an unrelenting war against all the demonic forces.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992), 315.
[4] “The only possible logic behind the Pharisaic position was that a mere human could not overcome a demon. If Jesus did have such a victory, therefore, it would show that he had aid from a superhuman source, and in their hostility their logic led them to hold that the source could only be Satan. But they had spoken hurriedly; they had not stopped to reflect that some of their own people claimed to cast out demons. The Pharisees would have vehemently denied that their sons were in league with the evil one, but they had not realized that such exorcisms said something about Jesus also. Therefore they will be your judges; your own sons will prove you wrong! The logic of a Pharisaic denial that their followers cast out demons through the evil one meant that Jesus did not use the powers of evil either. The sons would be able to testify to the fact that casting out demons was not a work of Satan. They would ‘judge’ them for ascribing to Satan what they, the exorcists, knew came from God.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992), 316.
[5] David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007), 288.
[6] “In making this unique claim—in the light of the expectation that in the last time God’s Spirit would rest on the Messiah (Isa. 11.2)—Jesus was almost certainly claiming that in his exorcisms it was evident that he was endowed with the eschatological Spirit and therefore an eschatological figure himself.” Graham H. Twelftree, “The Miracles of Jesus: Marginal or Mainstream?” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1.1 (January 2003), 119.
