Years ago Nikos Kazantzakis wrote a book with this title, which was later made into a very controversial film. Kazantzakis’ idea was that at the last-minute Jesus dreamed that he had avoided the crucifixion and settled down to a normal country life with Mary Magdalen. When he awoke, he realized that it was but a dream and decided to go through with his crucifixion. He chose to deny the final temptation to have a normal life but to go ahead and die for the sins of the world.
My own understanding of Jesus’ “last temptation” would be quite different. As I see it, according to a good deal of the Gospel writings and those of Paul, they believed that Jesus thought he was some sort of “Super Star” dying for the sins of the world. On the contrary, my own reading of the accepting way he received the judgment of the Jewish leaders and Pilate without protest or comment shows clearly that he did not view himself and his death as some sort dramatic and cosmic “payoff” for the sins of humankind.
Moreover, a close reading of what is now called the “Q Gospel”, namely the passages where Matthew, Luke, and Mark all agree almost verbatim, while leaving out the rest of those Gospels, shows that Jesus’ message and mission was an effort to teach humanity how to live and worship God, not that of dying on the cross for the sins of the world. Indeed, the main content of those coinciding passages of the three Gospels is what we call the “Sermon on the Mount”, which focuses on Jesus’s ethical teachings. The passages which tell of the death and resurrection of Jesus are not included. (Cf. Matthew 5-7)
In my view, then, the last temptation that the Jesus of the “Q Gospel” faced would have to become some sort of “magical savior”. The real test of the teaching of Jesus is focused in verses like “Love your enemies”, “You pay taxes on mint, dill, and cumin, but you ignore justice, mercy, and honesty,” and “Those who praise themselves will be humbled. Those who humble themselves will be praised”, “Treat people as you would like them to treat you.” Or as in the story of the Roman Centurion who asked Jesus to heal his sick servant, when the Centurion told Jesus he trusted him implicitly, Jesus said: “I tell you nowhere in Israel have I found such faith.”
In the end the last words of Jesus were “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” Never once did he talk back to his persecutors. He took all that they dished out to him silently. In the account of the Jesus washing his disciples’ feet he placed himself in the role of a servant and said to Peter, who objected to having Jesus wash his feet, “If you will not let me do this, you have no part in me.” He came to give his life for others, and to thereby teach us how to serve each other. Thus, he avoided the last temptation.
When one reads the final accounts of the Jesus story in each of the Gospels it becomes clear that there was a great deal of confusion about who saw what, who did what, and what it all meant. In my view the writers (compilers?) of these final events were both confused and under a good deal of pressure to come up with an account that made sense and cohered with the then traditional theology. They were all written many years after the events in question. The Q document focuses on the Sermon on the Mount, in short on Jesus’ more radical teachings about how to live a life pleasing to God. In addition, if we read Q as a separate document, it leaves out all the ‘extra” material about Jesus’ miracles and conflicts with the Romans.
In my view, then, Jesus avoided the “last temptation” to become a “hero” by sticking to his teachings about what a life committed to God really looks like. In his opening chapter the author of John’s Gospel says: “We beheld his glory, full of grace and truth.” That’s enough for me.
2 responses to “THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST”
Yet, Jerry, I think Jesus knew from the very beginning of his teaching and miracle working that he would be in trouble with the Jewish authorities, worse each day with each growth of notoriety. He knew his path ended at Golgotha and accepted it early in his work. The gospel of John tries to indicate this at the very early event of the wedding in Cana, where he changed water into wine (a metaphor?). Actually, it is not he but the Father who does it only when he, as the gospel writer notes, accepts that it is “his time” and that he incurs immediately the opposition that will put him on the cross. The teaching summarized in “Q” gathers what he says; the gospel speaks of who he is and of what he does. It is this latter that should form our understanding of the cross. And here we do not find him a “hero” but one who simply accepts the path laid out for him and trusts himself over to death. At Easter, we say, “He is risen”, not “He has risen.” The form is passive. The Father raises him, he does not heroically rise, having paid the price of sin. Personally, I think his “paying the price” is an ongoing process: I disrupt His creation by my sin even today, and He is doing something about it that I can’t do. That goes on costing him something on my behalf. He forgives me, and creation is sustained. More than grateful, I bow my head and receive what I cannot attain.
Hey again David. I guess I must demure on the idea that God is in “control” of all this – Whitehead makes too much sense to me on that score. Absorbent acceptance and creative wisdom can be a way of influencing evil events. I am thinking of Danny Glover’s response to the evil in the opening situation in the film Grand Canyon. Paz, Jerry