Jesus - A Messiah or Poached Egg?
C.S. Lewis, the great 20th century Christian apologist, ironically while trying to firmly convince the world of Jesus’ divine godhood gave a succinct reason for rejecting Jesus on all counts. In his collection of World War II radio addresses compiled in his book, Mere Christianity, Lewis had this to say about the moral character of the man Jesus:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. [1]
This statement is so riddled with absurdities that an intelligent and reasoning individual has no choice but to conclude that C.S. Lewis was, indeed, quite deluded. He recognizes that the statements attributed to Jesus make him a lunatic. Therefore, he must be the son of God. In Lewis’ mind that is the only real alternative. Yet, he offers no proof (and truly none could ever be offered) that Jesus is more than a mortal man.
Lewis, as the Apostle Paul before him, understands that without this faith in the divinity of Jesus the whole basis of Christian theology is for naught. To entertain doubt would be to create a crisis of faith that neither man would have likely withstood - as it stands Lewis’ faith barely survives the death of his beloved wife. Paul seems to have questionable mental stability. He is the typical religious zealot that we see in every age.
The only thing Lewis offers is an either / or choice. Choose to believe in the divinity and call him Lord and God or dismiss him as the lunatic he may well have been. Nowhere in Lewis’ proposition is there anything remotely akin to evidence proving where we know he is trying to take us. The only way to respond is to reject Jesus once and for all. Even in his own day the majority could find no reason to assume he was the promised messiah.
That Jesus did not fit the bill for the anointed one of God by the Jewish standards of his day (and indeed today) is well known. His followers were constantly being taken to tasks for infractions of the Jewish moral code. Jesus himself was something of a rabble rouser. He poked at the Jewish religious authority, made a huge scene at the temple and as a child there was an instance of disobedience to his parents (But, don’t all children?). During his public years he often appeared to speak harshly toward his mother.
At best Jesus was a rebel and anti-authoritarian. If we wish to be kind we may consider him to be a moral reformer. As any rationalist sees so clearly there is often a great divide between what we what we hold up as morals vs. actual ethics. Morals simply need to be decreed but require no explanation. Do this or else. Don’t do this or else. These are the “thou shall nots” of the Judeo-Christian tradition(s). Ethics requires a moral dialogue.
But, the most alarming failure of Jesus’ follower’s claim of his divinity or messianic calling is to be found in the Torah: those hung on a tree are cursed and shall be quickly buried. [2] The comparison of the cross to a tree is a well known symbol in Christianity.
We are also faced with the problem of historical evidence. While I am quite willing to accept the possibility that there was a historical man upon whom the later template of the Jesus of modern Christianity was overlaid, we are still faced with a ponderous lack of any actual evidence pointing to who this man really was. All accounts are based on hearsay and the handing down of oral traditions that were later collected into “Gospels”, which only 4 are accepted canon.
Given the hybridization process of religion I find it highly likely that the Jesus of Christianity - the risen Christ, if you will - is a composite of more than one person. The chief one being the so-called Teacher of Righteousness of the Essene sect of the 1st century Palestine, a tradition that Paul would have been very well aware of as would the historical Jesus.
A few radical scholars try to prove a connection with the Egyptian cult of Horus - an idea that I find somewhat preposterous despite the resurrection motif of Paul. Paul was a Jew even if he ended up being apostate. Resurrection of the body or even an afterlife was not typical Jewish beliefs, but they were not unheard of. Religions are always influenced by outside forces and not necessarily closed systems - a problem that has set many a prophet and reformer to bitching.
Finally, the curious claims of Jesus divinity need to be considered. It seems debatable whether or not Jesus actually made such references or even considered himself to be the “son of God.” Such a statement would have been blasphemy and was punishable by death. Such a belief would most likely be classified as lunacy.
It would not have been tolerated. His position as the second person in the holy trinity was a later development.
His “son of man” references are cloudier and not as easily understood as apologists would like us to believe. Typically the messiah, being anointed by god, would have been considered “the adopted son of God.” But, not divine. On this point we need to be clear. This is an adoption or selection of a person, not unlike a prophet, who has been tasked by god to lead his people. In ancient Israel the king was considered the “son of god” as well. He was god’s mouth piece - his representative to the people. This is not unlike the Catholic Pope - aka the Vicar of Christ - who is essentially a monarch and afforded the status of head of state throughout the world. The church proclaims the he speaks for god. The pope would never claim to be divinely related to God (at least we would hope so).
The reality of Jesus may be more like this. He was a man who, like many self-styled prophets, messiahs or avatars believed himself to have the hand of god upon him, but in the end simply suffered from delusion. That it is reported that he allowed himself to be arrested and eventually executed for his beliefs would only add to this notion, unless we assume like C.S. Lewis that he must be the Son of God. There is no logical reason to do so.
Judaism, especially in its most orthodox forms, is a messianic religion and is prone to prophetic and messianic cults. Jesus was not the first of his kind [3] and we see the Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew expressing concern that Jesus may end up being worse than the previous messiah. They persuade Pilate to keep a guard at the tomb in attempt to prevent his disciples from spiriting his body away and making claims that Jesus had risen from the dead [4]. Ultimately, they failed to prevent this.
The historical veracity of the claims made regarding Jesus’ life such as his miracles, healings and resurrection from the dead are simply not verifiable. In a modern day court of law they would be rejected as hearsay and not admissible. However, given the alarming religiosity of the United States this may actually prove to be false were it ever tested.
Regardless it is foolish to base an entire “way of life” on a person who, as C.S. Lewis points out, can not be considered a moral person. In other words Lewis’ most likely would find the necessity in rejecting the teachings of Jesus were not god. This is a most alarming quality of religion. How easy it is for some to follow immoral people or lunatics because of a desire to believe in god. I wonder if it ever occurred to C.S. Lewis that his faith was not hung on evidence - as faith
[1] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity - pp. 40-41
[2] Deuteronomy 21:22-23
[3] There have been several “messiahs” throughout history. Most notable are the lunatic Sabbatai Zevi and David Frank. The Ba’al Shem Tov (master of the good name) of the European Middle Ages was considered by some to potentially be a Messiah. During the 20th century there were some who believed Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994) was the messiah.
[4] It might be useful to mention that the Torah requires that a deceased person be buried in the ground by sundown. However, the rough bedrock of the Jerusalem area made this impossible. A special dispensation was granted during the 1st Century C.E. The bodies of the deceased were interred in tombs hewed from the surrounding hillsides. They were left there for a year. Once the remains had been skeletonized the bones were collected and put in ossuaries (literally bone boxes) and then interred in the ground. This was practice was only seen approx during the 1st century and was no longer used once Rome sacked Jerusalem in 70. C.E.