"...even if someone were to prove to me that the truth
lay outside Christ, I should choose to remain with Christ rather than with the
truth." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Site note: Dostoyevsky is NOT saying here that the truth doesn't matter or
can be cast aside. What he IS saying is that there is something in the life and
message of Jesus that transcends the logic of rhetorical proof.
The Brothers Karamazov: The Cardinal versus Jesus
Some thoughts on the differences between
the two concerning the 3 temptations
It is the position of this website that the accounts of the "temptations"
in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke–they are not in the Gospel of
John–are apocryphal and may be based on some undiscovered Hebrew literature
or parable, or, more likely, they are based on fabrications surrounding a
retreat to be alone in the wilderness by Jesus. The disciples aren't
portrayed as being present at the confrontation, and it is hard to imagine
that Jesus came back and told them how he passed these specific excruciating
tests. This is the stuff of myth
At best, Jesus may have come back from an extended wilderness
retreat and confided in the disciples that he was sorely tested while in agonized
contemplation, and the accounts got embellished like so many others and grew
into these final exaggerations. Nevertheless,
regardless of how
inaccurate and invalid they may be, they DO provide a foil for portraying some ultimate
issues. Here Dostoevsky uses them in his acclaimed novel, and he has the Grand Inquisitor
Cardinal explaining to Jesus where he went wrong.
Temptation 1. Ostensibly Jesus was
led into the wilderness by "the spirit" (whatever that means in this
context), where he fasted for
40 days. Famished, weak and on the edge of dying, he was confronted by Satan[*] with the
challenge that if he were the son of God, he would turn some stones to bread and save his
own life, thus doing the will of God. Jesus refuses with the quotation that "Man shall
not live by bread alone, but by the word of God."
The Cardinal then begins to press his major thesis by claiming that almost all people do not
have the courage or strength to use their volition or "free will" and faith at this
level, and that this would be an impossible, unloving burden. He then claims that Jesus
made a mistake, and should have produced the bread, thus identifying more with the people
where they are at
and not showing them all up by measuring up to an unreasonable standard and passing such
a subtle though simple test. As in, how can you expect people who
are dying of hunger to stand up and make such a ridiculous choice?
Temptation 2. The second temptation was to induce or maneuver God into a demonstration
of the value he placed in his son. Satan took Jesus to a temple pinnacle in Jerusalem
and challenged him that if he were the son of God, by throwing himself off, the angels
would take charge and bear him up, saving his life and thus showing his value to God.
Jesus again declined with a quotation, "You shall not test the lord your God."
The Cardinal Inquisitor continues on with his theme that again Jesus made a mistake, and
that people need a demonstration of this sort in order to have faith, and that Man
NEEDS a transcendent-to-human-being son of God. To be inspired primarily by the purpose
and values of a humble, equal human is outside of the Cardinal's thinking range.
Temptation 3. The first two temptations were easy compared to the third. The first
two were merely asking Jesus to do something unreasonable with only the retention of his
life at stake. Who cares about the value of one's life to someone else or even the sustenance
of one's life if there is no enhancement, no way to triumph over paucity or dearth of fulfillment?
Lot's of people destroy their own lives voluntarily by suicide in such a
"More precious than gold, more sought after than
love, more addictive than any drug: Power!"
The gloves were now off because the third temptation was about power, control and
fulfillment of most all the natural and artificial needs and desires that humans
have. More wealth, power, superiority, privilege, deference, romantic attention and sexual gratification
than any man had ever possessed, all within reach. Satan "showed him all the kingdoms of the
world and the glory of them", and offered it all to him if he acknowledged that he,
Satan, and his ways, could grant this fulfillment and ultimately enhance his life.
Jesus again refused with a quotation.
The Cardinal again presses his theme by claiming it was a mistake to not
take the power, and how, now, only the church is left as the alternative in
taking the power so that it
could numb the people's angst over the burden of free will and provide for their
mundane spiritual security.
First temptation analyzed
We, of course, do not have to understand these tests or temptations in the same way
that Dostoevsky portrays them. In the first, the simple logic would be that if God
led you to the brink of dying, the burden should then be on Him–God–to do something to get you
out of the predicament. If God could do this to you and not be ready to save
you, what is the point of living and worshipping?
Second temptation analyzed
In the second is the seed of logic to discount the literal reality of this
scenario ever having happened. If it is not legitimate for us to test God in arbitrary
ways, it would not be legitimate for him, in the name of love, to test US in this way.
Nobody in a relationship likes to be arbitrarily or purposely tested by the other.
Jesus was tested often by the reality of the situation and the issues, not by
God or a literal "Satan". Also, God made us, and he knows about us; we didn't
make him, and DON'T know about him in the same way!
Third temptation analyzed
In the third testing scenario the simple logic, promulgated by the IF-I-SEEK-US package,
is that the temporal, mundane and limited fulfillment available in this world–even IF
you had it ALL–IS NOT ENOUGH, and it would NEVER ultimately satisfy. Given the opportunity in a
reasonable way to really "have the
all" that is spoken about so eloquently in the Gospel of Thomas, one would simply be foolish to opt for
any mundane package in this world. A no-brainer if you actually understand and believe
in the Kingship of the Heavens! Jesus
was not available to sell out for mundane rewards, even IF they could have
[*] The title "Satan" is used in the earliest Gospel, Mark, and then
changed to the "Devil" in the later ones. This is telling, in that the
concepts of the two are NOT the same, and the development of the Devil
motif was not done until later in Christian times, not until after the
Gospel of Mark was composed.