If you doubt this, I'd like to persuade you by way of his parables, which imply a certain kind of ethical system with several key values. These include, principally, prudence, nonpossessiveness, nonjudgmentalism, humility, inclusion, and forgiveness. This is post is the first of several parts. In future parts, I'll address parables themselves. In this first post, I describe the scope of the project, explain what I mean by "Jesus the philosopher," and outline Jesus' morality with reference to a convergent ethical system.
"The preacher became the preached.”
This pithy description of the inception of Christianity presents us, like many of Jesus' own parables, with a Reversal,i and reveals a tension we must deal with. In this case, it captures something of that gulf which stands between us in the trans-Christian culture of the West, and the historical personage of Jesus of Nazareth. And while "the historical Jesus" is one subject which falls outside the scope of the present piece, it is helpful to recognize that a similar gulf separates us from Jesus the philosopher. It is not that writers have historically chosen to focus on Jesus as the subject of philosophy rather than as a proponent of it, and we can now simply chose the other path. For the only paths available to travel back along now are the paths of those philosophical traditions which have grown up around Jesus, almost—one might say—like weeds around a wheat crop. As such, even today when one consults a book like The Philosophy of Jesus (2007) by the American philosopher Peter Kreeft, one finds very little on Jesus's philosophy. In Kreeft's case, though, there is a twist entailed by his escalated Christology: that Jesus "the philosopher" has become in Kreeft's faith not just "the philosophized" but "philosophy itself" (in Kreeft's view, philosophy Himself). This extravagant claim is but one of many that could be made on the basis of Jesus's claimed divinity. And although Kreeft himself is a Thomist, this view of God is perhaps better understood along the lines of G. W. F. Hegel: that the eternal reality is Reason, and Reason is instantiated in human reasoning as it develops towards a divine unity. In Hegel's philosophy this unity is called the Absolute, but in Christian language this is the Cosmic Christ, "through whom all things were created," and in whose metaphysical body—the Church—humanity and creation itself will in the end be redeemed and glorified. Such grand metaphysical systems, and even the divinity of Jesus, are issues of a different sort of "Jesus-Philosophy" to that which I'd like to focus on for now. They arise from the higher Christology of John's Gospel, including its identification of Jesus with the Ancient Greek philosophical concept of the Logos. I shall not be focusing on the nature of Jesus, but rather on his parables, which are found in the other gospels. You may be relieved to hear that I shall not be concerned with "The Gospel" of salvation, nor with questions of the inspiration or historicity of the text, but simply with explicating (rather than defending) the philosophical views presented in the text as we have it. Needless to say, if we find some of these views implausible that is no reason why we may not find much worth in the others.
Jesus as a Philosopher
What does it mean to say that Jesus was a philosopher? It is not to say that he was a philosopher and nothing else. Historians are confident he was also a religious preacher and healer, and was seen as a miracle worker. Nor is it simply to say that his views touched upon philosophical issues, because as Kreeft observes, that would be true of any human being. No, his philosophy was more substantive than that.
It is common to hear Jesus compared with Socrates because they were both executed for standing up for their ideals. But although some have labeled philosophy as "learning to die well," it is not Jesus's death that makes him a philosopher, but his life, in which, like Socrates, he moved about teaching and questioning people -whether they liked it or not, criticizing and combating prevailing attitudes. In doing so, Jesus very often appealed to scriptural tradition (we cannot deny that he was thoroughly religious), but he often used reason in doing so—and philosophical argument is implicit in much of his teaching, particularly when he is in dialogue. In the "Synoptic Gospels" of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, however, most of his teaching takes the form of parables, which as stimuli to deeper thought, are philosophical devices also.
So what is Jesus's philosophy? Well, if we're bracketing off theological issues of salvation, and politely declining Kreeft's suggestion that Jesus is himself the true epistemology and the true metaphysics, we are left with moral philosophy. And what a rich resource for this Jesus is!
Now, a comprehensive moral philosophy provides several things:
- A metaethical account of the nature of the values fundamental to morality, i.e. goodness;
- A normative ethical account of what makes actions impermissible (wrong), or permissible, morally neutral, obligatory, or supererogatory (right);
- Decision procedures for assessing which course of action to take in given circumstances;
- Advice for dealing with complex problems like conflicts of duties; and
- General positions to take on controversial issues such as political authority, war, abortion, or euthanasia.ii
However far Christian ethicists may have succeeded in elaborating moral philosophies that encompass these needs, remember that here we are only concerned with a portion of the gospels (I mainly draw on Luke), let alone the whole Christian tradition. And I think it is clear that Jesus neither provides a comprehensive moral philosophy, nor any of those components of one.1 But this is not a failure on his part because, firstly, there are many useful points we can take from him which fall within these categories. Secondly, we can be quite confident of a few fundamental issues;
- Thought that morality was pervasive and important in human life, and that immorality is a serious issue to be corrected.
- Was not a moral relativist—he did not think that people could just act as they felt like or choose an ethic that was "true to them."
- Was a moral realist—he thought that there are moral truths, that moral questions have correct or incorrect answers.
- Was a Jew—he almost certainly believed in some general moral laws, e.g. that theft, false witness, adultery, murder, and idolatry were universally wrong, that is, wrong for gentiles as well as for those under the Mosaic covenant.2 (One might object that Jesus never explicitly taught such laws—but there would have been no need to, as his audience would have been well-versed in them. A better objection might be that he regularly taught against legalism. But rejecting legalism doesn't entail the rejection of moral laws any more than rejecting bestiality means that you hate animals.)
- Was not a consequentialist. He shared some ideas with utilitarianism but it is unlikely that he would have thought the ends always justified the means, because he showed no concern for maximizing good consequences. Probably, he trusted God to sort out what was best. What kind of supreme principle for determining moral rightness he would have subscribed to, however, or whether, like W. D. Ross, he would not have subscribed to one, is not clear.
Third and finally, we can forgive Jesus for not bequeathing us a prepackaged moral philosophy because he simply wasn't a modern systematic academic philosopher. (Obviously, he was thinking of the careers of future philosophers with characteristic mercy.) Rather, Jesus was what I call a eudaimonistic philosopher, like the Stoics and Neoplatonists influential in his contemporaneous Hellenistic culture, who were concerned with human flourishing and living a good life. This is a holistic approach to morality, which comprises what we might call a "secular spirituality" as well as a guide to right and wrong actions.
Jesus' Ethics as Virtue Ethics
The most successful system of eudaimonistic philosophy is the virtue ethics of Aristotle, which, via St. Thomas Aquinas, became incorporated into Roman Catholic doctrine as part of the framework for understanding Jesus' ethics. This tradition is also popular among Christians more generally, and hence Keith Ward, in his 2011 book The Philosopher and the Gospels, defines “Jesus' moral teaching” as “a participative virtue ethics,”iii "participative" here referring to how Jesus' audience would be gently coaxed3 into taking an active role in interpreting and experimenting with his ideas, in order to be opened up to a transformative experience. Rather, that is, than simply having "the truth" dictated to them in prepackaged conceptual language. This is the method Law Ware, the guest on the podcast, referred to as the "participatory pedagogy" of the parables.4 With virtue ethics, there are two different but compatible ways of thinking about it. On the one hand, it is about imitating the behavior of positive moral role models, and on the other it is about developing dispositions towards moral behavior—virtues—in oneself through habituation. The first approach would include the popular notion of "What Would Jesus Do?" In his 2007 book What Would Jesus Deconstruct? John D. Caputo notes the irony that the slogan began as a somewhat radical call for social justice but now has been hijacked by conservative evangelicals to promote conservative social views. Nevertheless, Jesus did call people to follow him, and perhaps more importantly, the ideal of imitating God underscored much of his teaching,iv most explicitly on the love of enemies (Matt. 5:43-48), which ends with the imperative “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” It is crucial to note that we do not need to believe that Jesus is the human incarnation of God to believe he is the (or an) ideal human being to emulate. Moreover, the Hindu 'Great Soul' (or Mahatma) Gandhi said “even if it turned out that Jesus never existed, his Sermon on the Mount would still be true for me.”
Whether we take virtue ethics to focus on the moral exemplar or on the moral agents (i.e., everyone else), it's clear it is the virtues themselves which are more fundamental in determining the rightness of actions. In what follows, my focus will therefore be on the virtues distinctive to Jesus' moral teaching. It is very unlikely that Jesus taught virtue ethics as an abstract theory. But I am arguing that it is the framework that provides us the best fit for our data on his teaching. This is mainly because his teaching consisted of moral precepts rather than laws (although sometimes the hyperbole with which he expressed these precepts made them sound like laws), and these were to encourage people to put his values into practice as virtues.
1 Regarding #4, he did teach people to put both themselves and God before their families and careers, but he spoke in hyperbole without giving specific practical advice.
2 This is how the (global) Noahide covenant is elaborated in Judaism, but we must be cautious about imputing that to Jesus, not because of his anti-legalism, but because it was not codified by Jewish authorities until around the third century after Jesus, though the belief probably goes back much longer.
3 It is interesting to note the parallel here with the principle in process theism, that God's action is always persuasive and never coercive.
4 This has similarities with the "poetic" method of the later Wittgenstein and of course with the dialogue style of Plato and the Socratic method of ignorance used therein.
i Cf. Ricoeur, , p. 241
ii Adapted from the introduction to: Hooker, Brad, (2000), Ideal Code: Real World, Oxford University Press
iii Ward, (2011), p. 119
iv Ward, (2011), p. 115 ff.
The Bible: New Revised Standard Version, (1993), Geoffrey Chapman, London
Caputo, John D., (2007), What Would Jesus Deconstruct?, Baker Publishing Group, Michigan
Kreeft, Peter, (2007), The Philosophy of Jesus, St. Augustine's Press, Indiana
Ricoeur, Paul, , 'Listening To the Parables of Jesus', from: Regan, Charles E. & Stewart, David (eds.), (1997), The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: An Anthology of His Work, Beacon Press
Ward, Keith, (2011), The Philosopher and the Gospels: Jesus Through the Lens of Philosophy, Lion Hudson, Oxford
The illustration is a 14th-century fresco from the Visoki Decani Monastery, Kosovo, Serbia.
Peter Hardy is an administrator on the Partially Examined Life Facebook Group. You can follow him on Twitter @VibrantBliss
M. L. Hunt says
You pretty much lost me at “Jesus was a philosopher.” Actually, rather, I’d say you lost me at ‘Jesus was….”
Is this entire essay directed only at people who accept Jesus as a real, historical, IRL person (or whatever he was)?
Peter Hardy says
“Is this entire essay directed only at people who accept Jesus as a real, historical, IRL person (or whatever he was)?”
Hello, no, the essay in its entirety (i.e. across several posts) gives an account of the philosophy taught by the character of Jesus as presented in the texts of the synoptic gospels, particularly Luke. Although I do personally believe that these are historical to a large extent, whatever the true extent is makes no difference to the success of the essay because that is not what I am talking about. Because these teachings have been extremely influential on humanity they are worth understanding whether or not they are from the Christ of Christianity.
In the posts to follow I occasionally refer to matters of historicity because the scholars I cite have differing views on it and these sometimes impact on how to understand them.
John Ludders says
The idea that the fact (or non-fact) of the actual existence of the person should make a difference in how we view a particular interpretation of the ethical system presented by that person (or character) seems way off to me. We have the writings that we have and they are some of the most important (read: influential. Important; not necessarily true.) things ever written in the history of the world. And, they present an ethical system that this article is discussing. That is totally legitimate regardless of the fact of that person’s existence.
Whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was a real living person does not have a bearing on how we interpret that philosophy. Should we not read and try to interpret and derive meaning out of Homer because he may or many not have been one or many people (http://www.classics.upenn.edu/myth/php/homer/index.php?page=hande)?
This is PEL. There is a long running Not School group on Philosophical Fiction. They did an episode on No Country For Old Men. The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are highly philosophical, highly valuable, and more than worthy thorough examination and consideration.regardless of whether or not you think he was a real person.
If you were lost at sentence one I feel kinda bad for you. There is a lot here and this is a good examination (beginning of an examination). Being so closed minded is only restricting yourself..
Thanks for writing this Pete.
Peter Hardy says
Thank you for reading John. (It’s likely you posted this today because you saw the second part had just been published, but if that’s not the case, you now know that it has.)
M. L. Hunt says
Oh, and your characterization of moral relativists as holding that “…people [can] just act as they [feel] like or choose an ethic that [is] “true to them…”: strawman much?
Peter Hardy says
How would you characterize moral relativism differently?
Hmm, having read through these and then digging about a bit, I can’t say I’m persuaded that Jesus was a philosopher, much less a moral philosopher.
He seems to me to be of a much more practical inclination, although some of what he says might imply an idealist or non-dual philosophy (that the world is something with which people are intimately connected, and is responsive to their acts).
Although I don’t think we can really have a final point of view on this unless we first come to some notion of what he means by “God” in his parables. (I am focusing on the parables here, less so on the subsequent interpretations.)
Reading through various versions, the implication is of something more “mechanical” or “automatic” rather than an “listening aware entity” which judges and makes choices. In fact, the parables indicate “unjust” and “accepting” and general “inhuman” behaviour.
He’s basically saying: “There is this thing which I am calling God. If you do these things, then God will respond in these ways.”
The “God” seems to mean something more like “The World” or “The Universe” than some sort of independent being.
Stephen Lovatt says
I strongly agree with you, except:
1. I think Plato is a better exponent of Virtue Ethics than Aristotle and it is better to relate Jesus’ philosophy to that of Plato than than of Aristotle.
2. I think that some kind of consequentialism is the only basis for ethics – but not a simplistic calculational consequationalism. The consequationalism of Scripture is “Either do justice and live or do injustice and die.” If you prefer: “The wages of sin are death.” Jesus keeps on referring to “eternal life” and “losing/keeping ones soul.” I agree strongly with your implied statement that “Deotological Ethics” are very far from Jesus’ mind.
3. Hegel’s ideas as you present them are simply taken from Plato.
4. Jesus’ philosophy extends beyond Ethics into Ontology and Epistemlogy – at least according to the Fourth Gospel – but I suppose that even there the Ontology and Epistemology are in the service of Ethics. Jesus is concerned about “being good” and so everything else is subordinate to this orientation. In my view, “it is good to be” and “being is good” so Ethics and Ontology are really the same subject 😉
Author of “The Good of Being: Life, God and the Basis of ethics.”
Wayne Schroeder says
“If we’re bracketing off theological issues of salvation, and politely declining Kreeft’s suggestion that Jesus is himself the true epistemology and the true metaphysics, we are left with moral philosophy.”
I therefore posit that the author of this series subscribes to a comprehensive moral philosophy for Jesus including: goodness as the meta-ethical nature of values fundamental to morality; a normative account of what makes actions wrong or right [i.e., judgment]; decisions for right courses of action.
Jesus is thus considered a moral realist: he thought that there are moral truths, that moral questions have correct or incorrect answers. He was “concerned with human flourishing and living a good life,” “a ‘secular spirituality’ as well as a guide to right and wrong actions,” “to encourage people to put his values into practice as virtues.”
So how is moral philosophy supposed to get us off the basis of judgment, the possessiveness of right and wrong, Jesus’s normativity, which is the basis of separation between self and others, and the cause of anxiety, greed and capitalism?
I think there’s too much water in the desert.
If you want to complain or argue, at least do it the right way, do it in front of the mirror.
The whole of the inspired word of The Creator is His Philosophy and we are well pleased on how to please Him by walking by faith, not by sight. He does not say be rational. We know not what to pray for nor do we know how to think. This is why in infinite wisdom he sends His Spirit to lead us in all truth. Truth is He leads us to Christ that we might submit our thoughts into his care until after He has reasoned with us through prayer (us talking to Him), meditation (Him talking to us), as we reason together. More than anything He desires obedience, not sacrifice. The very nuance of Scripture is Him to the Workman studying to show himself approved before He Himself, unashamed at the rightly dividing of the word of truth. Jesus is God incarnate, putting on flesh, leaving behind glory, coming down to fellowship with what is to reflect His very image by doing as He did, which was live life in His ‘So love’ be cause it’s the greatest thing of all. It’s always been His philosophy. No greater man than a friend who lay down His life for a friend. And He did this for us, His thoughts are so much higher than ours, as His ways are not at all like our ways. He does not want to reflect man, He wants man to reflect him in every way, literally, allegorically metaphorically, philosophically and even as innocently as would a child otherwise heaven is closed to you. All men are created equally but our abilities are widely arranged on different levels. What come easily to some is difficult for others, but it’s ok. Come as “you” are!
When I read “in the beginning God”, those may be the words, but what is being translated to me is God in his first office. The Spirit of God hovered over the face of the deep is God in His second office. God said, Him as the word in His third office. The very introduction of The Creator to all Creation. Let there be light translate walk by faith, not by sight. Simply believe that I’m exactly Who I say that I am, I AM and there is no other. God, your ever present Holy Sovereign, Jesus, your powerfully Righteous Prince of Peace, and The Holy Spirit your spirit guide Who leads you in Wisdom and and in Truth.
Milk for the babes, but meat for the mature.
I happened to believe that God’s Way in the only way if you’re seeking the right of things, because He is light, life and love and He is right in any case. And that’s my philosophy so deal with it. What man knows wouldn’t fill God’s thimble, but God is God ‘Alone’, and He is Omni.
Peter Hardy says
Hi, you say that God speaking through the Bible “does not say [to] be rational” but that is simply not true, there are countless places where the Bible teaches to be rational. Outside of the places where Jesus himself commends forms of rationality, we have “Come, let us reason together” (Is. 1:18), “Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15), and “Test everything and hold onto the good.” (1 Thes. 5:21)
Additionally, we have the whole Wisdom tradition in the Hebrew Bible which not only promotes rationality but exalts reason as divine (this is God as the Logos -the Eternal Word/Reason- which Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of). This tradition naturally gave rise to the Rabbinic schools of rational argumentation that Jesus was educated among.
It would be absurd to believe that God would give us the gift of our rationality and yet command us not to use it. Thankfully that is not what the Bible teaches. Faith is taught as a virtue, yes, but that is trust in what is rational, not blind faith.