|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Religion: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis writes this about Jesus (emphasis mine):
Three separate email correspondents of mine have used this argument to counter my assessment that Jesus was a wise prophet whose moral imagination has helped establish egalitarianism, moral relativism, and humanism in Western civilization. I take that experience to mean that Lewis’s argument still has a currency that it doesn’t deserve. Lewis wants you to choose among Jesus being a madman, the Devil of Hell, and God. After all, how wise could someone be if they claim to be God but aren’t? Lewis fails to see the fourth possibility. What about the people who say, "I am ready to accept Jesus as the great moral teacher, but I don't accept the claims the Christians make that He is God"? Lewis assumes, without demonstrating it, that Jesus claimed to be God. If Jesus never claimed to be God, Lewis's argument is baseless. Christians might affirm that Jesus is more than a moral teacher, but Lewis’s argument doesn’t demonstrate that it’s “foolish” to regard him as such. Scripture Before we start, it’s important to note that Lewis’s argument does not rely on the veracity of scripture. One can’t use the veracity of scripture to prove Lewis’s point. If you’re going to presume the veracity of scripture, then Jesus’ divinity is already proved and Lewis’s argument is empty. Lewis’s argument has substance only to the extent that it makes its case without presuming that scripture is true. If a Christian wants to argue that Jesus was God because scripture says so, that’s fine, but that’s not Lewis's argument. But aren't the gospels God's Word? Not according to the Bible itself. The Bible never defines the gospels as God’s Word. Jesus didn't write the gospels. He didn't tell anyone to write them. He didn't prophesy that they'd be written. The Bible never says that the gospels are the Word of God. Christians wrote the gospels, chose among them, assembled them, and declared them the Word of God. But there’s nothing self-contradictory or foolish about nonchristians having their own opinions about the veracity of scripture. Once we see that Lewis’s argument has to stand on its own without relying on scripture, we’re practically done refuting it. Lewis’s statement that Jesus claimed to be God is based on scripture, and once one can question scripture, there’s not much to it. But if I want to say that Jesus was a wise teacher, I do have to give at least some credence to scripture. After all, that’s where I get the idea that he was a wise teacher. So let’s see if we can get past the idea that Jesus claimed to be God without tossing scripture out wholesale. Claim to be God Don't the Gospels quote Jesus as saying that He was God? It’s this understanding that’s the foundation of Lewis’s argument. Is it true? This turns out to be a tricky question. To the surprise of some Christians, Jesus never comes out and lays it on the line. There’s a term in Christian scholarship for this reticence: the Messianic secret. But there are two plausible scenes where Jesus might be claiming to be God: when he’s talking about Abraham and when he’s at the council of chief priests. Neither of these instances, however, is ironclad. The Jesus Seminar, for example, rejects them both. In the gospel of John, Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am” (8:58). Christians looking for a claim for divinity use this one, with the idea that “I am” is a clear reference to the divine name, YHWH. But when God tells Moses his name, he says, “He will be that will be.” It’s not clear to me that “I am” in Aramaic and “He will be that will be” in Hebrew are really the same. But even if we grant that Jesus is claiming to be God in this scene, we are not beholden to take it at face value. Remember, Lewis’s argument is only worthwhile if it does not depend on the veracity of scripture. The gospel of John diverges pretty far from the other gospels in how explicit it makes Jesus’ identity with God. If we want to believe that Jesus never claimed to be God, it’s pretty easy to discount one scene from a text written by a strong advocate of the view that Jesus was God. As to Jesus answering the high priest (Mark 14: 61-62), when asked whether he was "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed," Jesus reportedly said, “I am.” Even if we accept this line as an actual claim to divinity (that it’s like saying “I’m YHWH”), there’s no reason to believe that Jesus said it. This is Jesus talking to the high priest while the disciples are elsewhere. How did the author of Mark know what Jesus said? In fact, the gospel of Luke (22:70) reports Jesus saying something else: "You say that I am." Christians will say that the gospel writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but once you presume that scripture is divinely true, then you don’t need Lewis’s argument. Lewis’s argument is that the idea of Jesus as a moral teacher is foolish because he claimed to be God, not because scripture is true. The sayings that modern scholars say can reliably be attributed to Jesus are generally those that he made in public and that more than one gospel reports, such as the Sermon on the Mount, the parables, the Golden Rule, etc. Jesus’ supposed claims to divinity are not on such firm footing. Transfiguration In Matthew 17: 1-8, Jesus is "transfigured" and God in Heaven calls him His Son. But only three disciples see the transfiguration: Peter, James, and John. Why only three? Why not in front of thousands of people? Why are there no accounts of Jesus telling people about the transfiguration? Maybe because it never happened. It looks for all the world like a scene invented after the fact in order to bolster the assertion of some disciples that Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus apparently called himself "son of God," perhaps because he had been "born again" when John the Baptist baptized him. Early Christians took the phrase rather too literally, and then they mistranslated Isaiah 7:14, and the story of the Virgin Birth was born. The story of the Virgin Birth seems to be another Christian idea that originated with Zoroastrianism, along with the Devil and Judgment Day. And even being the Son of God is not the same as being God. Jesus himself quotes Psalms and says to the Jews, “You are gods, sons of the most high, all of you.” If the Jews can be the sons of the most high without being God, Jesus can, too. Claims to Special Spiritual Status But didn't Jesus claim to be the Christ? And the Messiah? And the Son of Man? Sure, but these are not the same as God. Christ/Messiah (“Anointed”) were terms for the righteous king who would restore Israel. The “Son of Man” is an obscure term from Daniel, and it often seems to be used in it’s plain sense as “human being.” Christians associate the term “Son of Man” with “Christ, the incarnation of God,” but that meaning is not apparent in the text. Claim to Divinity Starting very early in the history of the church, many Christians claimed that Jesus was God, and that view was eventually declared doctrine. But the beliefs of Christians don’t disqualify Jesus from having been a wise teacher. Christians recorded accounts of Jesus possibly claiming to be God, but modern scholars do not trust early Christians to be totally accurate. If the idea that Jesus was a wise teacher is false, it’s not because it’s self-contradictory. Lewis’s argument works only because it doesn’t acknowledge the option that one can believe some of the gospel accounts without believing every word of them. Lewis’s argument, popular though it may be, is without merit. —JoT C. S. Lewis, currently best known as the author of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and the rest of the Chronicles of Narnia, now a movie by Disney.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
