Critiquing: #099 — Jesus for Everyone

January 6, 2022 | Ask NT Wright Anything — Premier

Jesus’ Call to Discipleship — God’s Kingdom and Judgment — The Role of Suffering — Radical Inclusivity — Historical Context of Jesus’ Mission

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	C	While the episode accurately reflects certain biblical narratives, there are significant issues regarding the interpretation of these texts. For instance, the assertion that Jesus’ call to discipleship directly fulfills Old Testament prophecies, like those in Daniel, overlooks the complexities and varying interpretations within the Jewish tradition. This selective use of scripture raises questions about the overall accuracy of the claims made, particularly when other scholarly views and historical contexts are not adequately addressed.
Degree of Coherence	B	The content of the episode generally follows a logical structure, moving from the discussion of Jesus’ mission to the implications for modern discipleship. However, the coherence is somewhat weakened by the assumption that modern Christian interpretations seamlessly align with first-century Jewish expectations. The episode also jumps between theological assertions and historical claims without clearly connecting the two, leading to potential confusion about the relationship between the historical Jesus and theological doctrines.
Absence of Fallacies	C+	The episode occasionally falls into logical fallacies, such as assuming a direct line from Old Testament prophecies to Jesus’ ministry without considering alternative interpretations. There is also a tendency towards begging the question, where the episode assumes the conclusion—Jesus’ role as the fulfillment of God’s kingdom—without fully substantiating this with independent evidence. Furthermore, some arguments rely on appeals to tradition, suggesting that longstanding Christian interpretations are inherently correct without critically examining their historical origins.
Degree of Evidence	D+	The episode largely lacks robust evidence to support its claims, particularly when it comes to historical and scholarly backing. The discussion often references biblical texts without acknowledging the broader scholarly debates surrounding their interpretation. For example, the episode asserts that Jesus’ mission was understood as the fulfillment of prophecies like those in Daniel, yet this claim is not supported by detailed historical analysis or references to contemporary scholarship. The absence of such evidence weakens the overall persuasiveness of the arguments presented.
Degree of Testability	D	The theological claims made in the episode, such as the nature of God’s kingdom and the purpose of Jesus’ ministry, are inherently difficult to test or falsify. These claims are often based on interpretations of scripture that are not open to empirical verification. While this may be acceptable within the context of faith-based discussions, it does limit the ability to critically assess these arguments from a rational, evidence-based perspective. This lack of testability reduces the overall reliability of the episode’s conclusions.
Rational Confidence	C-	The episode exhibits a high level of confidence in its theological assertions, often presenting them as definitive interpretations of scripture. However, this confidence is not matched by the evidence provided, leading to a potential overstatement of the certainty with which these conclusions can be held. The discussion would benefit from a more nuanced approach that acknowledges the limitations of the evidence and the possibility of alternative interpretations, thereby aligning the level of confidence with the strength of the supporting arguments.

---

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Lack of Empirical Evidence:

“They believed that this oracle, which we can track back to the book of Daniel, said that there was actually a chronology effect.”

The claim regarding the direct link between Daniel’s prophecies and Jesus’ ministry is presented with certainty, yet it lacks empirical evidence or references to critical historical scholarship. The interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy as a precise prediction of Jesus’ arrival is contested among scholars, with many arguing that it reflects the concerns of its own time rather than a distant future messianic figure. The failure to engage with this broader scholarly context leaves the argument unsubstantiated and weakens the overall accuracy of the episode.

2. Overconfidence in Theological Assertions:

“The whole point of the Kingdom of God is a different vision of power. And it goes like this.”

This statement exemplifies the episode’s tendency to present theological assertions with a level of confidence that is not supported by empirical evidence. The “different vision of power” attributed to the Kingdom of God is a theological interpretation that, while meaningful within a faith context, cannot be empirically verified or universally accepted. The episode would be stronger if it acknowledged the interpretative nature of these assertions and the existence of alternative viewpoints, rather than presenting them as definitive truths.

3. Logical Inconsistencies:

“He is calling helpers. And at this point, actually, it doesn’t matter if we say this is inclusive or exclusive because it is for everyone.”

The argument that Jesus’ call is both inclusive and exclusive without resolving this apparent contradiction undermines the coherence of the episode. Inclusivity suggests that all are welcome, yet exclusivity implies a selection or limitation. This tension is not adequately addressed, leaving the listener with an unresolved paradox. A more rigorous analysis would explore how these concepts might coexist within the framework of Jesus’ ministry, potentially by distinguishing between different forms or levels of inclusion and exclusion.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: Jesus’ Call to Discipleship

Premises:

1. If Jesus calls disciples, He does so with a specific divine purpose rooted in the fulfillment of God’s kingdom.
2. Jesus called His disciples in the context of initiating the Kingdom of God on Earth, as foretold by Old Testament prophets.
3. The Kingdom of God, as understood by Jesus, is a transformative project aimed at establishing a new divine order.
4. Jesus’ disciples are selected to play a crucial role in manifesting this new world order on Earth.

Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus’ call to discipleship is inherently a call to participate in the divine project of establishing God’s kingdom on Earth.

Counter-Argument: This syllogism assumes a direct and unbroken connection between Old Testament prophecies and Jesus’ mission without sufficiently addressing the historical and theological complexities involved. The interpretation of Jesus’ role as the inaugurator of God’s kingdom is a theological construct that may not fully align with the diverse understandings of messianic expectations in first-century Judaism. Moreover, this argument does not account for the possibility that Jesus’ call to discipleship was understood differently by his contemporaries, with varying expectations and interpretations that may not fit neatly into the narrative of a divine kingdom project. To strengthen the argument, it would be necessary to critically engage with these alternative perspectives and provide a more nuanced analysis of how Jesus’ actions were perceived within their historical context.

---

Argument 2: God’s Kingdom and Judgment

Premises:

1. The Old Testament prophets predicted a future time when God would establish His kingdom and execute divine judgment on the world.
2. Jesus’ message, particularly the proclamation that “the time is fulfilled,” signifies the arrival of this predicted era.
3. The establishment of God’s kingdom involves not only judgment but also the restoration of creation, bringing it into alignment with divine will.
4. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are the means by which this judgment and restoration are actualized.

Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus’ mission was to inaugurate God’s kingdom, executing divine judgment and restoring creation in accordance with the prophecies.

Counter-Argument: This argument relies heavily on the presumption that Jesus’ mission directly corresponds to the Old Testament prophecies about God’s kingdom and judgment. However, this interpretation is not universally accepted and is subject to significant scholarly debate. Different Jewish sects during the Second Temple period had varying understandings of what the “kingdom of God” and divine judgment entailed. Additionally, the argument assumes that Jesus’ life and death were intended to fulfill these specific prophecies, a view that may reflect later Christian theological developments rather than the historical realities of Jesus’ ministry. A more rigorous argument would consider the diversity of Jewish eschatological expectations and explore how Jesus’ message might have been understood within this broader context, rather than presenting a singular interpretation as definitive.

---

Argument 3: Radical Inclusivity

Premises:

1. Jesus’ ministry involved calling individuals from diverse and often marginalized backgrounds, thereby demonstrating a form of radical inclusivity.
2. The inclusion of these individuals was not merely symbolic but transformative, requiring a change in values, behaviors, and social status.
3. Jesus’ mission aimed to establish a community that reflected the inclusive nature of God’s kingdom, breaking down existing social and religious barriers.
4. Radical inclusivity, as practiced by Jesus, necessitates both acceptance and transformation, aligning individuals with the values of the Kingdom of God.

Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus’ ministry is characterized by a radical inclusivity that requires transformation from all who are included in His community.

Counter-Argument: The notion of “radical inclusivity” in Jesus’ ministry, while compelling, requires careful scrutiny. Historical evidence suggests that while Jesus did interact with marginalized individuals, his core group of disciples was still largely composed of men from specific social and ethnic backgrounds. This raises questions about the extent to which his inclusivity was truly radical by the standards of his time. Additionally, the expectation of transformation upon inclusion suggests that this inclusivity was conditional, potentially undermining the notion of it being “radical” in the modern sense. The argument could be strengthened by acknowledging these historical nuances and considering how Jesus’ actions might have been shaped by the social and political contexts of Roman-occupied Judea, where certain forms of inclusion and exclusion were socially and religiously normative.

◉ No Coherent Divine Project:

The Incoherence of God’s Will and the Illusion of Spiritual Warfare

The concept of a divine project is often heralded as a central tenet of Christianity, suggesting that there is a grand, coherent plan orchestrated by God that unfolds through human history. However, when scrutinized, this idea collapses under its own contradictions and inconsistencies. The notion that a perfectly benevolent and omnipotent God requires human cooperation to fulfill His will is not only logically flawed but also trivializes the very nature of divinity.

First, let us consider the claim that God’s will is being accomplished through human actions on Earth. Christians are taught that their deeds are crucial in bringing about the kingdom of God. Yet, paradoxically, the same theology asserts that God’s will is supreme and inevitable, accomplished in spite of human actions rather than because of them. If God’s will is truly unassailable, then it stands to reason that nothing humans do—or fail to do—can thwart it. This raises the question: what is the point of the so-called divine project if it can be realized irrespective of human intervention? The idea that an all-powerful God requires the assistance of fallible humans to execute His plan renders the concept of divine omnipotence absurd.

Moreover, the concept of spiritual warfare, so often invoked by Christians to explain the struggles between good and evil, is equally incoherent. The idea that God, who is described as omnipotent and omniscient, would need to engage in a protracted struggle with an enemy that He could obliterate in an instant is not only illogical but borders on the ridiculous. If there is indeed a supreme being capable of vanquishing evil with a mere thought, then why does this being permit the existence of an adversary in the first place? The notion of spiritual warfare thus begins to resemble a child’s game, where parents create imaginary monsters to keep their offspring entertained. It is a distraction, a way to occupy the minds of believers with the illusion of a struggle that has no real stakes.

The idea that the divine project necessitates human involvement and the battle against an easily defeatable foe portrays a deity more concerned with the appearance of engagement than with actual outcomes. This turns the concept of faith into a charade, where believers are merely players in a pre-scripted drama with no real agency or influence over the final act. The monumental battles and moral choices that Christianity exalts are, in this light, nothing more than a series of scripted events designed to give followers the illusion of purpose.

In conclusion, the absence of a coherent definition of the divine project and the farcical nature of spiritual warfare expose Christianity’s core tenets as fundamentally flawed. The narrative of an all-powerful God who requires human help to fulfill His will, and who engages in battles He could end in an instant, reveals the Christian story not as a profound spiritual truth, but as an elaborate and ultimately hollow game.

---

Thank you for reading. We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section below. Let’s continue the conversation and explore these ideas together.