Critiquing: #100 — Jesus the Revolutionary

January 13, 2022 | Ask NT Wright Anything — Premier

Biblical Narrative — Jesus’ Death — Kingdom of God — Temple Significance — Messiah’s Role

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The episode generally aligns with established Christian theological positions, particularly those within Anglican and mainstream Protestant thought. However, some interpretations, such as the cosmic significance of the crucifixion, stretch beyond widely accepted doctrines and venture into more speculative territory. This speculative nature slightly lowers the overall accuracy.
Degree of Coherence	C+	The logical structure of the episode is occasionally compromised by abrupt shifts between concepts, such as moving from symbolic interpretations of the temple to literal applications in Jesus’ ministry. This can create confusion for the listener and weakens the overall coherence of the argumentation presented.
Absence of Fallacies	B-	While the episode largely avoids outright logical fallacies, there are moments where arguments are oversimplified, particularly in the discussion of the redefinition of power. The portrayal of traditional power versus Jesus’ redefined power risks creating a false dichotomy that oversimplifies the complex nature of power dynamics.
Degree of Evidence	C	The speaker often relies on theological interpretations and biblical references but does not always provide sufficient evidence to substantiate some of the more significant claims. For example, the argument that Jesus’ crucifixion won a definitive victory over evil is stated as a theological conclusion without detailed exegesis or reference to broader scholarly debate.
Degree of Testability	C-	Many of the claims made in the episode, particularly those regarding the cosmic significance of Jesus’ actions, are inherently theological and metaphysical, making them difficult, if not impossible, to test empirically. This limits the overall testability of the arguments presented.
Rational Confidence	C+	Confidence in the presented arguments varies. While some points are well-supported by traditional Christian teachings, others, such as the idea of Jesus as the embodiment of the temple, rest on more speculative theological interpretations, reducing the overall rational confidence.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Coherence: The episode struggles with maintaining a coherent logical structure, particularly when discussing the significance of the temple and its relation to Jesus. The argument that “Jesus is behaving as though he’s the temple in person” is introduced with little transition from the broader discussion of the temple’s role in Jewish tradition. The connection between Jesus’ actions and the temple’s symbolic meaning is asserted rather than thoroughly developed, which disrupts the logical flow and leaves the listener with an incomplete understanding of how these concepts interrelate.

2. Degree of Evidence: The episode’s reliance on theological assertions without sufficient evidence undermines the strength of its arguments. For instance, the claim that “Evil has done its worst and it has been defeated” is presented as a conclusion but lacks a detailed explanation of the theological or scriptural basis for this assertion. While this view is rooted in Christian tradition, it is presented without engagement with alternative interpretations or critical scholarship that might challenge or complicate this perspective. The lack of rigorous evidence or engagement with opposing views weakens the overall argument.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: The Cross as the Victory over Evil

1. Premise 1: Jesus’ crucifixion is the moment when victory over evil was definitively won.
2. Premise 2: This victory, though definitive, requires ongoing implementation through the life of the Church and the actions of believers.
3. Premise 3: The resurrection of Jesus serves as the confirmation of this victory, demonstrating the defeat of death and sin.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, the crucifixion is not merely a historical event but a cosmic victory that fundamentally transforms the nature of the world and the relationship between God and humanity.

Counter-Argument: The notion that the crucifixion represents a definitive victory over evil is a central tenet of Christian theology but remains highly interpretative. Critics may argue that this claim is more symbolic than factual, given the persistence of evil in the world. If the crucifixion truly marked the end of evil’s power, one would expect a more immediate and observable change in the human condition and societal structures. Additionally, the argument hinges on a particular interpretation of resurrection and atonement that is not universally accepted even within Christian circles, let alone in other religious or secular contexts. The reliance on theological rather than empirical evidence to support this claim makes it difficult to test or verify, thereby weakening its overall persuasiveness.

Argument 2: Jesus as the New Temple

1. Premise 1: In Jewish tradition, the temple is the sacred space where heaven and earth meet, and where God’s presence is most fully manifested.
2. Premise 2: Jesus claims to fulfill the role of the temple by offering forgiveness of sins directly, bypassing the need for temple rituals and sacrifices.
3. Premise 3: The destruction of the physical temple and Jesus’ resurrection signify the establishment of a new covenant, with Jesus himself as the locus of divine presence and the mediator between God and humanity.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus embodies the temple, serving as the ultimate meeting point of the divine and the human, where forgiveness and reconciliation are accomplished.

Counter-Argument: The assertion that Jesus embodies the temple is a powerful theological claim but one that is not easily substantiated through scriptural or historical evidence. The argument presupposes a continuity between Jesus’ actions and the temple’s functions, yet the New Testament texts are often ambiguous about this connection. Moreover, this interpretation can be seen as imposing a Christian narrative onto Jewish traditions, which may not necessarily align with the intentions of the original temple rituals or the broader context of Second Temple Judaism. Furthermore, the destruction of the temple in 70 CE could be interpreted through various lenses—historical, political, or religious—without necessarily affirming that Jesus replaces the temple’s role. This view also risks oversimplifying the complex and multifaceted significance of the temple in Jewish life and theology.

Argument 3: Redefinition of Power through the Cross

1. Premise 1: Traditional power structures in human societies are typically based on domination, coercion, and violence.
2. Premise 2: Jesus, through his life and particularly through his crucifixion, redefines power as self-sacrifice, service, and love.
3. Premise 3: The crucifixion, rather than being a sign of defeat, is the ultimate expression of this redefined power, where victory is achieved not through force but through enduring suffering and offering redemption.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, true power in the Kingdom of God is found not in domination but in the self-giving love exemplified by Jesus, which ultimately triumphs over the forces of evil.

Counter-Argument: While the concept of redefining power through the cross is central to Christian ethics, it faces challenges when applied to broader societal and political contexts. Critics might argue that the ideal of power as self-sacrifice is noble but not practical in many real-world situations where power dynamics are complex and often require a balance of strength and diplomacy. Additionally, the crucifixion as an act of power redefinition may be seen as a theological construct rather than a universally applicable model for power relations. In contexts where survival, justice, and the protection of the vulnerable are at stake, the application of this model can be problematic. Moreover, the argument does not fully address how this redefinition of power translates into tangible change within political systems or how it can be reconciled with the need for justice and accountability in human governance.

◉ The Rhetorical Power of the Cross:

An Emblem of Theological Incoherence and Emotional Manipulation

The rhetorical power of the cross is undeniably potent, but its potency lies not in any verifiable truth or logical coherence. Instead, it is a triumph of emotional manipulation over reason, a tool wielded by theologians to keep their followers in thrall to a narrative that crumbles under scrutiny. Invoking the “power of the cross” serves as a kind of mystical incantation, a phrase designed to evoke deep feelings of reverence, guilt, and redemption. Yet, when we strip away the emotional veneer, what remains is an empty shell—a just-so story crafted to explain away the absurdities of Christian doctrine without ever offering a coherent rationale.

At the heart of the Christian narrative is the notion of bloodshed as necessary for redemption. The idea that a three-day death could somehow atone for the supposed sins of all humanity is not just illogical; it is a grotesque distortion of justice. If we are to believe Christian doctrine, we must accept that an omnipotent deity requires the brutal execution of his son to forgive humanity—a concept that is as morally repugnant as it is nonsensical. What kind of justice demands the death of an innocent to absolve the guilty? This sacrificial logic is more akin to ancient pagan rituals than to any enlightened understanding of morality.

Moreover, the idea that sin is transmitted genetically—passed down from Adam and Eve to every human being—is nothing short of theological hand-waving. This concept, known as original sin, is presented as a fundamental truth of Christianity, yet it lacks any basis in reason or evidence. It is a convenient explanation for why humans are inherently flawed, but it raises more questions than it answers. How, exactly, is sin encoded in our DNA? Why should an entire species be condemned for the actions of two individuals? These are the questions that Christian theologians avoid, instead weaving complex spiritual dynamics that are nothing more than speculative fiction.

Christians are, inescapably, victims of these unsubstantiated claims. They are led to believe in a narrative that has no grounding in reality, a story that relies on faith—a term that is often celebrated but ultimately means believing without evidence. Theologians and church leaders capitalize on this blind faith, presenting the cross as the ultimate symbol of divine love and sacrifice, while conveniently sidestepping the glaring contradictions and moral dilemmas that underpin this narrative.

The power of the cross is, in reality, the power of rhetoric—a tool to evoke emotional responses rather than to convey any substantive truth. It is a testament to the human capacity for wishful thinking, a symbol that, despite its lack of logical coherence, continues to wield influence over billions. Yet, when examined critically, it becomes clear that this power is an illusion, a construct maintained by those who have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth.

We invite you to discuss this topic further in the comments section below. Let’s engage in a conversation that challenges assumptions and seeks to uncover the truth behind the rhetorical power of the cross.