Mere Christianity, Chapter 9
In this chapter, Lewis talks about the importance and reasoning behind the death and rebirth of Jesus. He writes:
"What did he come to do? Well, to teach, of course; but as soon as you look into the New Testament or any other Christian writing you will find that they are constantly talking about something different - about His death and His coming to life again. It is obvious that Christians think the chief point of the story lies there. They think the main thing He came to earth to do was to suffer and be killed."
This really makes me uncomfortable. If an all powerful God came to earth "to teach, of course," why wouldn't the most important thing be the instructions he gave? By focusing on his death and rebirth, aren't we ignoring and undermining the stated purpose of his visit? He must have had something that he really wanted us to get right; and I am disturbed that his followers could be so brazen as to contradict him on the fundamental purpose of His visit.
If he came to earth primarily to suffer and be killed, then why would he bother to teach at all? Couldn't he just come down, announce his divinity to the Jews and Romans, work some miracles to prove it, and let them kill him? Surely, that would make a vivid and undeniable impression on the entire Jewish and Roman population. Instead, he spent years teaching, often riling crowds with his instructions and then fleeing to keep from being killed by a mob. Why would he run if being killed was his purpose?
It is a natural response to assert that he didn't allow himself to be killed because he 'wasn't done getting his message across.' There are two problems with this argument.
First, how do you know he had finished getting his message across before he was killed? He did come back and keep teaching, after all. That wouldn't be necessary if he had finished what he wanted to do. On the other hand, if you accept that He might have been killed before he had finished his primary purpose for coming to earth, wouldn't that strongly imply that his death was an accident, and that he returned to finish his real job?
In either case, you fundamentally lose something in this argument. Either his actions are inconsistent with his purpose, or his death was an accident, and not deserving of the attention that it has subsequently received.
Even if Christ's death had served to wash out our sins, or even disable death itself, God didn't seem to think that it was as important as the instructions that he was trying to get across to us. So it deeply concerns me that sincere Christians would put anything as more important than that.
"What did he come to do? Well, to teach, of course; but as soon as you look into the New Testament or any other Christian writing you will find that they are constantly talking about something different - about His death and His coming to life again. It is obvious that Christians think the chief point of the story lies there. They think the main thing He came to earth to do was to suffer and be killed."
This really makes me uncomfortable. If an all powerful God came to earth "to teach, of course," why wouldn't the most important thing be the instructions he gave? By focusing on his death and rebirth, aren't we ignoring and undermining the stated purpose of his visit? He must have had something that he really wanted us to get right; and I am disturbed that his followers could be so brazen as to contradict him on the fundamental purpose of His visit.
If he came to earth primarily to suffer and be killed, then why would he bother to teach at all? Couldn't he just come down, announce his divinity to the Jews and Romans, work some miracles to prove it, and let them kill him? Surely, that would make a vivid and undeniable impression on the entire Jewish and Roman population. Instead, he spent years teaching, often riling crowds with his instructions and then fleeing to keep from being killed by a mob. Why would he run if being killed was his purpose?
It is a natural response to assert that he didn't allow himself to be killed because he 'wasn't done getting his message across.' There are two problems with this argument.
First, how do you know he had finished getting his message across before he was killed? He did come back and keep teaching, after all. That wouldn't be necessary if he had finished what he wanted to do. On the other hand, if you accept that He might have been killed before he had finished his primary purpose for coming to earth, wouldn't that strongly imply that his death was an accident, and that he returned to finish his real job?
In either case, you fundamentally lose something in this argument. Either his actions are inconsistent with his purpose, or his death was an accident, and not deserving of the attention that it has subsequently received.
Even if Christ's death had served to wash out our sins, or even disable death itself, God didn't seem to think that it was as important as the instructions that he was trying to get across to us. So it deeply concerns me that sincere Christians would put anything as more important than that.
posted by Me at 9:35 AM
<< Home