Tag: Jesus Christ

Posted on

How Could Jesus be Tempted?

By Jim Spiegel

Scripture tells us that Jesus was tempted to sin on various occasions.  For instance, Luke records his repeated temptations by the devil (Luke 4).  And the writer of Hebrews says regarding Jesus that “we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin” (Heb. 4:15).  However, given Jesus’ moral perfection—the fact that he had no sinful nature and was in fact divine—how can it be said that Jesus was genuinely tempted?  Isn’t temptation something that only sinners can experience?

While there are many ways to deal with this, my approach is as follows.  First, we need to ask what constitutes a “temptation” and then ask whether a morally impeccable (human) being could satisfy the requirements.  As I see it, these are the necessary (and jointly sufficient) conditions for genuine temptation:

1. A situation or context in which a person, S, could physically perform a particular action, X.

2. Doing X would be morally wrong (in this context).

3. S finds X attractive in some sense.

It seems to me that if these three conditions are satisfied, then you have a genuine temptation.  Now notice that none of them presuppose that the person tempted is morally imperfect or sinful.  In fact, a morally perfect person, even a God-man, could satisfy each of these criteria.  And, in the case of Jesus that’s just what we see in several instances when Jesus is tempted in the desert.  When, for example, the devil tempts him to “tell this stone to become bread” (Luke 4:3):  (1) this is something that Jesus could physically do, (2) doing this would be wrong in this context, and (3) Jesus finds the proposed action attractive (since he is so hungry).

So as with most temptations, the action in question is not categorically wrong (wrong in all contexts) but simply wrong in a certain context.  (Compare: extra-marital sex is wrong, though sex within marriage is good and even a marital obligation).  So it is not moral imperfection that is a key ingredient for human temptation so much as a particular context, combined with a certain attractiveness and ability to carry out the action.

Note my stipulation of physical ability to do X.  The reason I am careful to make this qualification is because I don’t believe it was metaphysically possible for Jesus to sin. Given his divinity, he would never sin.  This is what prompts some people to question the genuineness of the temptations of Jesus.  But that is to impose an overly strict condition on a definition of temptation.  In ordinary human experience, all that is necessary for temptation is the three conditions noted above.  So the addition of a further condition (such as that the person tempted must be a sinner or that giving into the temptation must be metaphysically possible) would be superfluous.

This is just a rough sketch of how I would handle this difficult question regarding the temptation of Jesus.

Posted on

The Real Offense in Christianity

By Jim Spiegel

In my previous post—January 8—I discussed some aspects of Christianity which might explain why people might find it so offensive—it’s supposed dangerousness, blatant irrationality, and the exasperating nature of some Christian people.  None of these factors really explain the anger and hostility so often directed at Christianity.  So what is the explanation?  Since Christianity provokes people much more than Judaism or Islam (or generic theistic belief), there must be something about Jesus himself or the gospel message that bugs people so much.  What could that be? 

I suspect (as some readers intimated in their comments) that the resentment really has to do with the implications of Jesus’ crucifixion—the idea that he had to die (and resurrect) for our sins.  This implies, of course, that there is something wrong—terribly wrong—with humans which needs fixing.  Specifically, we need to be forgiven, and our offenses are so egregious that they called for a blood sacrifice.  And not just any blood-sacrifice.  Killing a toad or even an AKC-registered poodle wouldn’t do the atoning work.  In fact, not even a human child sacrifice would do.  No, it had to be the execution of a morally perfect person—God incarnate.  Now if that isn’t insulting to our pride as a species, I don’t know what is. 

Of course, this moral insult is well-deserved, if we are as naturally depraved as Scripture teaches.  But for those who think there is nothing wrong with human nature (despite the constant wars, human trafficking, ethnic cleansing, child molestation, and countless other evils all over the globe), I can see how this would seem ridiculous and even be a rather annoying claim.  Indeed, as the Apostle Paul said, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” (1 Cor. 1:18). 

Lest we forget, the Christian story is also a profound compliment—that God loves us so much as to provide that sacrifice himself.  Again, to quote Paul: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).  And, as it turns out, this is the only way to reconciliation with God, as Jesus declares, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).  Yet this, too, is a blow to human pride, as it implies that we cannot save ourselves; even the most perfect repentance, apart from Christ, would be ineffectual in avoiding God’s judgment. 

So whatever else might bug people regarding Christianity, the ultimate source of offense is human pride.  People are offended by Jesus because his crucifixion represents both a divine condemnation of our sin and a statement that we cannot escape that condemnation on our own.  Again, I do see why this would bother people who think the Christian message is false.  If the Christmas and Easter stories are fictions, then our worldview is merely a profound insult; and as Paul says, “we are to be pitied more than all men” (1 Cor. 15:19).  But if Jesus really was the God-man and really did die and rise from the dead for us, then, well, that is wondrous—mind-boggling, in fact, and should make us very, very glad.  Far from being offensive, it is the best possible news.

Posted on

What’s So Offensive About Christianity?

By Jim Spiegel

This past holiday season saw more stories of communities using “holiday trees” instead of Christmas trees and retailers insisting that their employees not say “Merry Christmas” to customers, out of a concern not to offend people.  Some folks are disturbed by Christianity—much more so, it seems, than by the other major theistic traditions of Judaism and Islam.  So far I haven’t heard anyone complain about public use of the phrase “Happy Hanukkah” or “Happy Ramadan.” 

The last few years have also seen a marked upsurge in Christian-bashing, as bloggers and pop culture figures have become more brazen in their criticisms and lampooning of Christianity.  You don’t have to listen or read very long to see that this is not just a matter of intellectual dissent but visceral disgust.  The fact is—increasingly it appears—many people find Christianity offensive.  Why is this so? 

Let’s consider some possibilities.  Perhaps it is because Christian ideas and values are dangerous.  Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and other new atheists think so, based on their observations that many terrible things have been done by religious people, including Christians.  They seem to overlook the myriad social goods that Christians have contributed throughout history and that Judeo-Christian values are foundational to the very concept of human rights (Nicholas Wolterstorff’s book Justice is the latest scholarly demonstration of this fact). The argument of Hitchens, et al. pivots on abuses of Christian teachings, not the doctrines themselves.  A crucial but common mistake.  Of course, notwithstanding all of this, the perception that Christian ideas are dangerous might still explain, in part, some people’s offense.

Another possibility is that people are offended by how pushy and aggressive some Christians are when it comes to their beliefs  This can be very annoying, as people are made to feel more like marketing target than persons.  This is actually one of my own pet peeves about the evangelical world.  But lots of non-Christians in our society are pushy with their beliefs as well.  Plenty of professors and entertainers are aggressive worldview proselytizers.  Every marketer pushes her products.  Every lobbyist presses her agenda.  Even scientists and auto mechanics proselytize others to win converts.  Evangelistic Christians might be more of a nuisance to some people than these other zealots, but, again, this doesn’t seem to explain the degree of offense that so many people feel in regards to Christianity and its adherents.  (In fact, renowned illusionist and atheist Penn Gillette regards such evangelistic fervor as admirable.  Check out a remarkable anecdote here.)

Thirdly, people might be offended by Christianity because they perceive it as obviously false, a blatant flouting of reason.  This seems to be what bugs Bill Maher in his controversial documentary Religulous  as well as the creators of The God Who Wasn’t There.  But, again, this doesn’t quite explain the level of disdain and even hatred that some people display towards Christianity and Christians.  When someone is as badly deluded as Christians are, according to these critics, the proper emotional response is not hatred but pity.  I don’t see a lot of pity on the part of the new atheists and anti-Christian critics.

My pastor recently suggested that the primary offending element is the suggestion, implicit in Christian theology, that there is a moral authority to which one is accountable.  There’s probably some truth to this.  In our culture the idea that one must live according to someone else’s standard, even if that Someone is God himself, is offensive to some people.  The problem with this answer is that it can’t explain why Christianity appears to offend people more than other theistic traditions, most notably Judaism and Islam.  Mention Moses or Mohammed with approval in a public context—or even quote either of them as an authority on some issue—and no one raises an eyebrow.  People may disagree with you, but they won’t try to censure you or get you fired.  But if you bring Jesus Christ into the conversation or—if you have the temerity—affirm his moral authority on an issue, then, well, look out. 

So what is it about Jesus Christ that is so offensive (if, indeed, it is not just his followers but Jesus himself who bugs folks so much)?  I will address this question in my next post but, in the meantime, I’d be happy to hear your own thoughts—in response to this question or anything else I’ve said.

Posted on

Happy New Year (Whatever that Means)

By Jim Spiegel

When I exchanged “Happy New Year” greetings with someone yesterday, I found myself thinking “What a relief that I can use a holiday salutation which is not potentially offensive because it implicitly endorses my religion—Christianity.  Unlike “Merry Christmas,” a phrase containing the messianic title of the One whose birth we celebrate, “Happy New Year” is free from any such reference.  But then, as I reflected, it occurred to me that even this phrase potentially endorses Christianity—at least if we refer to the new year as 2009.  For what does that number signify but the (approximate) number of years that have passed since Jesus Christ was born.  It is, after all, A.D. (Anno Domini—“Year of our Lord”) 2009.  So now I’m wondering when someone will begin a serious public campaign to change the current dating system because it tacitly honors Jesus as the chronological reference point of world history.

Of course, this has already been addressed in scholarly circles by the “Common Era” system, in which the abbreviations “B.C.” and “A.D.” are supplanted, respectively, by “B.C.E.” (“Before the Common Era”) and “C.E.” (“Common Era”).  However, this change is merely nominal, as the dates used are the same as ever, the pivotal reference point still being the birth of one Jesus of Nazareth.  So is there a different historical event which would be a more broadly acceptable alternative?  In the 1790s, supposedly, there was a movement in France to make the French Revolution the key chronological marker.  Obviously, that never caught on.  Perhaps something like Aldous Huxley’s fictional suggestion of “A.F.” (“After Ford”) would be more appropriate.  In Brave New World the “Ford” dating system made pivotal the year (A.D.) 1908, when the first Model-T was made.  Huxley rightly saw how modern technology would change the world (and how we think about the world).  But, with the benefit of hindsight (and some reasonable foresight), we might settle on the computer as a more impactful technology.  Perhaps we could dub 1936 as the pivotal year (marking the introduction of the Z1 Computer, a primitive machine useful for basic calculations).  This would have the natural appeal of allowing for continued use of “B.C.” (“Before Computers”) and implementation of “C.E.” (“Computer Era”), which would represent a sort of compromise between the Christian and Common Era dating systems, at least ostensibly.  That would make this year 73 C.E., and it would also mean that Jesus himself was born in the year 1936 B.C. (or, adjusted for historical precision, perhaps something like 1939 B.C.).

Somehow I don’t think this proposal holds much promise for catching on either.  On the whole, human civilization is just too thoroughly committed to the Christian dating system.  As a Christian, of course, this is okay by me, since I think it makes sense to regard God’s incarnational entrance into human history as the central event.  But should non-Christians be bothered by this?  Should they take offense by expressions such as “Happy 2009” as some are by expressions like “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Easter”?  If so, then perhaps we should qualify our “Happy New Year” salutation somehow.  How about this:  “Happy New Year, Whatever the Word ‘Year’ Might Mean to You.”  Ah, now doesn’t that have a pleasant, inclusive ring to it?  Hmm…  Lets see if it catches on.