This is the second installment of Wayne Jackson's two part look at Christ from an historical perspective. It's copied here from the November, 1977 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
Since it is quite evident that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, historical person, the question of who He was is of vital importance. The truth is, there are only three possible answers to this query. Christ was either a liar, a lunatic or the Lord. Let us focus upon these alternatives.
1. It is an indisputable fact that Jesus claimed to be the divine Son of God. On trial, when interrogated by the high priest, in answer to the question, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?", Jesus declared, "I am" (Mark 14:61-62). Is it possible that such a claim was false; that this Jew was in fact a phony, a con man, a totally unethical charlatan? Not even Christianity's bitterest enemies have been willing to so characterize Jesus. Infidelic French philosopher Rousseau, in contrasting Socrates with Christ, was constrained to say, "Yes, if the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of a God" (Emile, 1.4). Renan, the renowned French humanist and historian, called Jesus a, "sublime person" and declared that in Him, "is condensed all that is good and lofty in our nature" (Life of Jesus, p. 1, 28). Goethe, the German pantheistic poet, referred to Christ as, "a pattern and an example" and affirmed that He was, "the divine manifestation of the highest morality" (Lewes, Life and Works of Goethe, Vol. 2, p. 307). And David Strass, the German theologian who debunked the gospel accounts as collections of myths, nevertheless said of Jesus that He was the greatest man who ever walked the earth (Leben Jesu, B.111, s. 147).
Such accolades as the foregoing hardly accord therefore, with the recent and very exceptional view of Hugh J. Schonfield who in his infamous book The Passover Plot, asserts that Christ was some sort of messianic manipulator who, "plotted and schemed with the utmost skill" to bring about, "the attainment of His objectives" (p. 162). Schonfield can hardly be taken seriously however. For example, in his book, Schonfield contends that Christ did not die upon the cross at all. Rather, having received a powerful narcotic which made Him appear as dead, He was removed unconscious according to a prearranged plan, by His disciples. Unfortunately though, Schonfield claims, Jesus did not count on the piercing of His side by the Roman soldiers and so, after being taken from the cross on Saturday, "He regained consciousness temporarily, but finally succumbed" (p. 172). However, in a book published just six years before The Passover Plot, Hugh J. Schonfield unequivocally declared that Christ expired on the cross, observing that it was the Roman custom to break the legs of criminals to hasten death. Yet, "In the case of Jesus this was not done," he writes, "as He was found to be dead already" (The Bible Was Right, p. 74). One is led to believe that the real plot, and that with monetary overtones, is of Schonfield's doing! The fact is, Jesus' conduct was so above reproach that He could look His foes in the eye and challenge, "Which of you convicts Me of sin?" (John 8:46).
2. Was Jesus Christ some sort of psychotic lunatic who sincerely, though mistakenly entertained grand notions of being Deity? Such was the view of the viciously irreverent Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw. Shaw claimed that Christ was sane until Peter confessed Him to be the Messiah. He, "then became a monomaniac" being possessed of a delusion that is quite common, "among the insane." Shaw however, known almost as well for his amorous adventures in immorality as for his literary feats, is hardly to be considered an objective historian. Such a low view of Christ was certainly not entertained by John Stuart Mill, one of infidelity's most renowned philosophers. In his Three Essays on Religion he declared: "About the life and sayings of Jesus there is a stamp of personal originality combined with profundity of insight, which must place the prophet of Nazareth, even in the estimation of those who have no belief in his inspiration, in the very first rank of the men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast" (p. 255). Though unbelieving historian H. G. Wells would strip Christ of His divine nature, he nevertheless characterized Him as a "great teacher" and asks: "Is it any wonder that to this day this Galilean is too much for our small hearts?" (The Outline of History, pp. 527, 536). Is that a description of a lunatic? Hardly! As one writer observed, "...the skill and depth of His teachings support the case only for His total mental soundness. If only we were as sane as He!" (Clark Pinnock, Set Forth Your Case, p. 62).
3. It only remains for us to acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth was the divine Son of God. All of the evidence points to this. And there is absolutely no reason for disregarding such, save on the grounds of subjective inclinations which reject the supernatural.
The multiple Biblical testimonies, from friend and foe alike, for the divine Lordship of Jesus are simply overwhelming to the unbiased mind. First, the Old Testament writers though indicating that Jesus would come in the form of a man, also clearly affirmed His divine nature as well (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 13:7). Secondly, angels testified to the divine nature of the Bethlehem baby (Matthew 1:20-21; Luke 1:26ff; 2:14). Thirdly, on three occasions, Jehovah the Father spoke from Heaven regarding His Son (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; John 12:28). Fourthly, Christ Himself asserted His Deity (John 5:17; 8:58; 10:30). Additionally, those closely associated with Him in His ministry and therefore more qualified than modern critics to know, unhesitatingly declared Him to be the Son of God (Matthew 16:16; John 1:29, 34, 49; 11:27; 20:28). Finally, and highly significant when viewed from the standpoint of legal evidence, is the fact that even Christ's enemies were ultimately forced to admit either directly or by implication, the truth of His claims.
His betrayer Judas, confessed to having delivered up, "innocent blood" (Matthew 27:4). The judge at His trial, Pilate (together with his wife) conceded Jesus to be a "righteous man" (Matthew 27:19, 24) and guilty of no crime (John 18:38; 19:4, 6). And this would include perjury, though Christ had testified under oath that He was the Son of God. Even His executioners made the self incriminating admission, "Truly this was the Son of God" (Matthew 27:54). Finally, from those very chief priests who instigated the Savior's death, a great company eventually became followers of the risen Christ (Acts 6:7).
Could more evidence possibly be needed? The Christ of history is there. He cannot be avoided. He must be dealt with. Let all people of God everywhere press this issue upon our contemporaries!
No comments:
Post a Comment