Sunday, September 1, 2013

Lewis: What are we to make of Jesus Christ?

Surfing the net a bit before going to bed and came across this below--what a good way to round out a beautiful Sunday.  I, too, believe the gospels are reliable and that Christ is unique.  No one would have invented this story and made up such a man.  

What are we to make of Jesus Christ ?  An essay by C.S. Lewis ; Oxford 1944

Quote entire:

"What are we to make of Jesus Christ ? This is a question which has, in a sense, a frantically comic side. For the real question is not what are we to make of Jesus Christ, but what is He to make of us ? The picture of a fly sitting deciding what it is going to make of an elephant has comic element about it. But perhaps the questioner meant what are we to make of Him in the sense of ' How are we to solve the historical problem set us by the recorded sayings and acts of this Man ?' This problem is to reconcile two things. On the one hand you have got to almost generally admitted depth and sanity of His moral teaching, which is not very seriously questioned , even by those who are opposed to Christianity. In fact , I find when I am arguing with very anti-God people that they rather make a point of saying, ' I am entirely in favor of the moral teachings of Christianity' --- and there seems to be a general agreement that in the teaching of this Man and His immediate followers, moral truth is exhibited at its purest and best, it is not sloppy idealism, it is full of wisdom and shrewdness. The whole thing is realistic, fresh to the highest degree, the product of a sane mind. That is one phenomenon.

The other phenomenon is the quite appalling nature of this Man's theological remarks. You all know what I mean, and I want rather to stress the point that the appalling claim which this Man seems to be making is not merely made at one moment of His career. There is, of course, the one moment which led to His execution. The moment at which the High Priest said to Him, ' Who are you ? ' ' I am the Anointed, the Son of the uncreated God, and you shall see Me appearing at the end of history as judge of the Universe.' but that claim in fact, does not rest on this one dramatic moment. When you look into His conversation you will find this sort of claim running through the whole thing. For instance, He went about saying to people, ' I forgive your sins. ' Now it is quite natural for a man to forgive something you do to him. Thus if somebody cheats me out of $10 it is quite possible and reasonable for me to say ' Well, I forgive him, we will say no more about it.' What on earth would you say if somebody had done you out of $10 and I said, 'That is all right, I forgive him'? Then there is a curious thing, which seems to slip out almost by accident. On one occasion this Man is sitting looking down on Jerusalem from the hill above it and suddenly in comes an extraordinary remark -- 'I keep on sending you prophets and wise men. ' Nobody comments on it. And yet, quite suddenly, almost incidentally, He is claiming to be the power that all through the centuries is sending wise men and leaders into the world. Here is another curious remark: in almost every religion there are unpleasant observances like fasting. This Man suddenly remarks one day, 'No one need fast while I am here.' Who is this Man who remarks that His mere presence suspends all normal rules? Who is the person who can suddenly tell the School system they can have a half-holiday? Sometimes the statements put forward the assumption that He, the Speaker, is completely without sin or fault. This is always the attitude. 'You, to whom I am talking, are all sinners, ' and He never remotely suggests that this same reproach can be brought against Him. He says again, ' I am begotten of the One God, before Abraham was, I am,' and remember what the words 'I am' were in Hebrew. they were the name of God, which must not be spoken by any human being, the name which it was death to utter. Well, that is the other side. On the one side clear, definite moral teaching. On the other, claim which, if not true, are those of a megalomaniac, compared with whom Hitler was the most sane and humble man. There is no half-way house and there is no parallel in other religions. If you had gone to Buddha and asked him ' Are you the son of Bramah?' he would have said, ' My son, you are still in the vale of illusion.' If you would have gone to Socrates and asked , ' Are you Zeus?' he would have laughed at you. If you would have gone to Muhammad and asked ' Are you Allah?' he would first have rent his clothes then cut your head off. if you had asked Confucius, ' Are you Heaven?', I think he would have probably replied, ' Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.' The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you. We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met Him. He produced mainly three effects---- Hatred---Terror--- Adoration. There was no trace of people experiencing mild approval.

What are we to do about reconciling the two contradictory phenomenon? One attempt consists in saying that the Man did not really say these things, but that His followers exaggerated the story, and so the legend grew up that He had said them. This is difficult because His followers were all Jews; that is, they belonged to that Nation which of all others was the most convinced that there was only One God-- that there could not possibly be another. It is very odd that this horrible invention about a religious leader should grow up among the one people in the whole earth least likely to make such a mistake. On the contrary we get the impression that none of His immediate followers or even of the New Testament writes embraced the doctrine at all easily.

Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legends and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don't work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from this bit of Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature , until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. and the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.

Then we come to the strangest story of all, the story of the Resurrection. It is very necessary to get the story clear. I heard a man say, ' The importance of the Resurrection is that it gives evidence of survival, evidence that the human personality survives death.' On that view what happened to Christ would be what had always happened to all men, the difference being that in Christ's case we were privileged to see it happening. This is certainly not what the earliest Christian writes thought. Something perfectly new in the history of the Universe had happened. Christ had defeated death. The door which had always been locked had for the first time been forced open. This is something quite distinct from mere ghost-survival. I don't mean that they disbelieved in ghost-survival. On the contrary, they believed in it so firmly that, on more than one occasion, Christ had to assure them that He was not a ghost. The point is that while believing in survival they yet regarded the Resurrection as something totally different and new. The Resurrection narratives are not a picture of survival after death; they record how a totally new mode of being has risen in the Universe. Something new had appeared in the Universe: as new as the first coming of the organic life. The Man, after death, does not get divided into 'ghost' and 'corpse'. A new mode of being has risen. That is the story. What are we going to make of it ?

The question is, I suppose, whether any hypothesis covers the facts so well as the Christian hypothesis. That hypothesis is that God has come down into the created universe, down to manhood--- and come up again, pulling it up with Him. The alternative hypothesis is not legend, nor exaggeration, nor the apparitions of a ghost. It is either lunacy or lies. Unless one can take the second alternative ( and I can't ) one turns to the Christian theory.

' What are we to make of Christ?' There is no question of what we can make of Him, it is entirely a question of what He intends to make of us. You must accept or reject the story.

The things He says are very different from what any other teacher has said. Others say, 'This is the truth about the Universe. This is the way you ought to go,' but He says, ' I am the Truth, and the Way, and the Life.' He says, ' No man can reach absolute reality, except through me. try to retain your own life and you will be inevitably ruined. Give yourself away and you will be saved. He says, ' If you are ashamed of Me, if , when you hear this call, you turn the other way, I also will look the other way when I come again as God without disguise. If anything whatever is keeping you from God and from Me, whatever it is, throw it away. If it is your eye, pull it out. If it is your hand, cut it off. If you put yourself first you will be last. Come to Me everyone who is carrying a heavy load, I will set that right. Your sins, all of them, are wiped out, I can do that. I am Re-birth, I am Life, eat Me, drink Me, I am your food. And finally, do not be afraid, I have overcome the whole Universe.' That is the issue."

1 comment:

Lothar Lorraine said...

Hello Brigitte.

Thanks for your link!

I believe that we cannot use C.S. Lewis argument at the end of the day because it is not possible to show that Jesus really thought of himself as being God, albeit some indications can be found.

If you check out my blog you'll find an other about Jesus nature and you're more than welcome to comment it.

Lovely greetings from Europe.

Lothar’s son – Lothars Sohn