Lewis’s trilemma: a proof of Jesus’s divinity

Summary:

The trilemma that C. S. Lewis proposes in his book Mere Christianity is crystal clear: "Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. [...] When you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips [...] 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. 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 [...] 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.

We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, Book II, Chap.4).

Here is a summary of the reasoning:

1. Jesus claimed to be God.
2. Either he was telling the truth or he was telling falsehoods.
3. If what he said was untrue, either he knew it was untrue, or he didn't know it.
4. If Jesus knew he was telling falsehoods, he was a liar.
5. If Jesus didn't know he was telling falsehoods, he was crazy.
6. It is highly unlikely that Jesus was a liar.
7. It is highly unlikely that Jesus was mad.
8. So it's highly unlikely that Jesus was lying.
9. So it's very likely that Jesus was telling the truth.
10. So it's very likely that Jesus was God.

Premise n. 1 was established in our previous article (Jesus spoke and acted as God's equal). Premises 2 to 4 are self-evident. Premise n. 5 seems to make sense, but we'll come back to it later. Let's look at premise n. 6.

The liar hypothesis

To persist in such a lie to a dozen poor Galilean fishermen, just for the fun of it, would presuppose an extraordinary level of dishonesty. It would contradict the general portrait of Jesus painted by the Gospels and his moral preaching carried out throughout his ministry. Religious charlatans are usually power-hungry and glory-seeking, puffed up with pride and vanity. Yet none of these flaws are to be found in the person of Christ. Quite the contrary! All we see is a gentle man, attentive to the poorest and to human misery, who cares for women, washes his disciples' feet and preaches love of neighbor. He asks his apostles to detach themselves from their material possessions and live in poverty. He demonstrates his humility and service to others on a daily basis. He doesn't get angry when people hit him. He claims to have come "not to be served, but to serve" (Mk 10:15). Let's be clear: if Jesus had really lied, we'd really be dealing with the most hypocritical and dishonest scam in human history. It seems to us that such pathological pride is ruled out by his virtues.

But even supposing Jesus had wanted to lie (an unimaginable scenario from what we've just said), why would he have wanted to maintain this lie at all costs before the Jewish authorities who wanted to crucify him? Why would he have wanted to be flogged and tortured for long hours, for something he knew to be false? None of this makes any sense! Even if we were led to believe that Jesus could have lied to his apostles for three years, once he arrived before the Jewish tribunal, we can imagine that, seeing the atrocious death awaiting him, he would have finally admitted the truth to escape it, by saying, for example: "No, my disciples have misunderstood me, I never claimed to be God. Don't torture me." But he did no such thing. He accepted to undergo a long and painful passion, followed by a terrible execution by crucifixion. A liar would never have gone that far. Yes, people die and accept torture for false things (ISIS fighters are a good example), but people don't die for things they know to be false (jihadists die and accept torture for beliefs they hold to be true, not for the pleasure of getting blown up). Clearly, then, Jesus is not a credible liar. The least we say is that he really believed what he preached.

The madness hypothesis

So, was Jesus crazy? If he was, we'd expect to find signs of madness that might be likened to the God complex syndrome in psychiatric textbooks. However, there is nothing in the Gospels to support this idea. Jesus showed no signs of madness. He was clear, direct and convincing in his teachings. He always gave answers that left his opponents speechless as they tried to trap him. Far from any folly, Jesus uttered words whose wisdom no longer needs to be demonstrated:
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Mt 22:21).
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (Jn 8:7).
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mk 2:27).

It's highly unlikely that a madman could have uttered such wise words, whose relevance has grown stronger over the centuries. Who can honestly maintain that the author of the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Prodigal Son was mentally unbalanced? It seems to us that Christ's wisdom rules out such a pathological state. If Jesus had shown even one sign of madness during his ministry, we can imagine that the crowds or the Jews would have reported it. However, precisely the opposite is true: "When Jesus had finished speaking, the crowd was amazed at his teaching" (Mt 7:28); "All who heard him were astounded at his understanding and his answers" (Lk 2:47).

Even Christ's enemies didn't dare question his wisdom: "Some of them even wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him. So the guards went to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, ‘Why did you not bring him?’ The guards answered, ‘Never before has anyone spoken like this one’"  (Jn 7, 44-46).

There's no denying it: the psychological profile of Jesus throughout the Gospels reveals no trace of madness. As author Frédéric Guillaud points out: "Jesus has all the hallmarks of an original, but without any psychotic, paranoid or schizophrenic traits. People with this kind of megalomaniac complex are narcissistic, egocentric, impatient, tyrannical and devoid of empathy. Their relationships with others are completely abnormal, fruitless, devoid of love and attention. Insane people of this type are incapable of deep, rational moral reflection. Jesus, unlike them, apart from this unheard-of claim to be the only Son of God, strangely displays none of the specific features of the "God complex" described by psychiatric textbooks: on the contrary, even though he implicitly claims to be God, he acts in the most humble manner: he refuses to be proclaimed king, he rejects all earthly power, he doesn't want to be served, but to serve, he washes the feet of his disciples, refuses to be defended by arms, teaches humility everywhere by his example, and shows manifest empathy towards the smallest and weakest. From a narrowly human point of view, we could say that his psychological profile is totally incoherent: he claims to be God, but acts as a servant. While it's true that Jesus offers a surprising face of God, it must also be said that he doesn't make a credible fool" (Frédéric Guillaud, Catholix Reloaded, Cerf, 2015).

Was Jesus simply mistaken about his identity?

Finally, some might challenge premise n. 5 and argue that Jesus might have simply and unintentionally "mistaken" his own identity, without being crazy. This hypothesis is not credible either. No human being can convince himself of his divine nature without being insane. If you pass a man in the street who genuinely and honestly believes he is Napoleon Bonaparte, it would be irrational to argue that he has no mental problem. Likewise, if you came across a man who claimed that he was God, that he existed before Julius Caesar, and that he should be loved more than your own wife and children, what would you conclude? It would be perfectly stupid to answer: "This man is neither mad nor a liar. He's simply mistaken." It would make no sense at all! The same applies to Jesus' shocking statements. If he is only a man, then his claims can only be madness or a lie. So it'sabsurd to suggest that Jesus was simply mistaken without being mad. Yet, as we have seen, Jesus is neither mad nor a liar. 

The conclusion follows logically and necessarily: Jesus was telling the truth. He is God!

Beyond reasons to believe:

The divinity of Christ is a core belief of the Christian faith. It is through his Incarnation that God united himself with human nature to make himself close to us.

Going further:

Stephen T. Davis, Christian Philosophical Theology, Oxford, 2006, ch. 9.

More information:

• Article What the Early Church Believed: The Divinity of Christ
• See also the excellent article by philosopher Stephen T. Davis, “The Mad/Bad/God Trilemma: A Reply to Daniel Howard-Snyder”, available online:
  https://docslib.org/doc/8131094/the-mad-bad-god-trilemma-a-reply-to-daniel-howard-snyder.
• Another good resource on Jesus' mental health is psychiatrist O. Q. Hyder  “On the Mental Health of Jesus Christ”, Journal of Psychology and Theology, Biola University, vol. V, # 1, December 1977, p. 3-12.