Ben Wilson

I think it is a textbook, like I think it's actually used as a textbook in some seminaries, and so it reads like it. Paul Johnson's account is much more poetic. And so I like that because it helps bring home who Jesus was as a person. So that's why I'm using more of his quotes in these end notes. But here's another one, Paul Johnson on his self-control.

A careful reading of the gospels shows us the man who always kept his head, if not his life, when others were losing theirs. They teach us patience, forbearance, self-control, calmness, serenity, the pursuit and maintenance of quiet amid the storm of life. For more than 2,000 years, this has proved a valuable lesson to those individuals and societies intelligent enough to learn it.

A careful reading of the gospels shows us the man who always kept his head, if not his life, when others were losing theirs. They teach us patience, forbearance, self-control, calmness, serenity, the pursuit and maintenance of quiet amid the storm of life. For more than 2,000 years, this has proved a valuable lesson to those individuals and societies intelligent enough to learn it.

Jesus pushed virtues like mercy as far as they could go, but he was not an extremist. On the contrary, all the evidence of the Gospels shows the balance of his life, the faultless way in which he steered sensibly between egregious positions. He was a private man, but not a hermit. He could be solitary, but only for brief periods. He liked company in moderation.

Jesus pushed virtues like mercy as far as they could go, but he was not an extremist. On the contrary, all the evidence of the Gospels shows the balance of his life, the faultless way in which he steered sensibly between egregious positions. He was a private man, but not a hermit. He could be solitary, but only for brief periods. He liked company in moderation.

He talked, he had much to say, but he said it succinctly, and he knew when to ask questions and when to be silent. He was equable but could express indignation when required. He could weep, but he never despaired. He could laugh, though we were never explicitly told so, but he laughed with, not at. He was mocked, but he never mocked. He was struck, and he turned the other cheek.

He talked, he had much to say, but he said it succinctly, and he knew when to ask questions and when to be silent. He was equable but could express indignation when required. He could weep, but he never despaired. He could laugh, though we were never explicitly told so, but he laughed with, not at. He was mocked, but he never mocked. He was struck, and he turned the other cheek.

In an age of fury and loathing, when religious extremism held sway, he was a difficult man to dislike, let alone hate. And if, in the end, the unbalanced man hated him enough to kill him, it was precisely for his equanimity. And I do think that is one of the most powerful images of Jesus is at the end of his life, standing in silence to his questioning. Right.

In an age of fury and loathing, when religious extremism held sway, he was a difficult man to dislike, let alone hate. And if, in the end, the unbalanced man hated him enough to kill him, it was precisely for his equanimity. And I do think that is one of the most powerful images of Jesus is at the end of his life, standing in silence to his questioning. Right.

That that self-possession, that self-control to to never lose himself to rage or any emotion is something I'm going to take away. OK. One other note that I found interesting is you have the Sadducees, you have the Pharisees. And it's interesting because the Pharisees. believed in resurrection and the Sadducees did not.

That that self-possession, that self-control to to never lose himself to rage or any emotion is something I'm going to take away. OK. One other note that I found interesting is you have the Sadducees, you have the Pharisees. And it's interesting because the Pharisees. believed in resurrection and the Sadducees did not.

So it's unclear exactly what the Sadducees believed in terms of eschatology and the afterlife. But they did not believe in a resurrection the way the Pharisees did. And there's a political component to this. So here's what N.T. Wright says. The reason why Jewish aristocrats rejected resurrection might actually have less to do with theology than with sociology.

So it's unclear exactly what the Sadducees believed in terms of eschatology and the afterlife. But they did not believe in a resurrection the way the Pharisees did. And there's a political component to this. So here's what N.T. Wright says. The reason why Jewish aristocrats rejected resurrection might actually have less to do with theology than with sociology.

The real problem was that resurrection was from the beginning a revolutionary doctrine. It implied a reordering of power. a radical overhaul of the existing hierarchies of authority. For Daniel 12, resurrection belief went with dogged resistance and martyrdom. For Isaiah and Ezekiel, it was about Yahweh restoring the fortunes of his people.

The real problem was that resurrection was from the beginning a revolutionary doctrine. It implied a reordering of power. a radical overhaul of the existing hierarchies of authority. For Daniel 12, resurrection belief went with dogged resistance and martyrdom. For Isaiah and Ezekiel, it was about Yahweh restoring the fortunes of his people.

It had to do with the coming new age, when the life-giving God would act once more to turn everything upside down, or perhaps, as some might have said, the right way up. It was the sort of belief that encouraged young hotheads to attack Roman symbols placed on the temple, and that, indeed, led the first-century Jews into the most disastrous war they had experienced.

It had to do with the coming new age, when the life-giving God would act once more to turn everything upside down, or perhaps, as some might have said, the right way up. It was the sort of belief that encouraged young hotheads to attack Roman symbols placed on the temple, and that, indeed, led the first-century Jews into the most disastrous war they had experienced.

Thus, for those on top of the social pile, whether in Jerusalem or in Corinth, resurrection beliefs might be seen to threaten their established position.

Thus, for those on top of the social pile, whether in Jerusalem or in Corinth, resurrection beliefs might be seen to threaten their established position.

People who believe that their God is about to make a new world and that those who die in loyalty to him will rise again and share gloriously in the rule of that world are far more likely to lose respect for a wealthy aristocracy than people who think that this life, this world, and this age are the only ones that will ever be. Okay. So that's interesting, right?