Bono on Jesus

Bono on Jesus April 1, 2015


It’s a defining question for Christian. Who was Christ?

I don’t think you’re let off easily by saying he was a great thinker or great philosopher. Because, actually, he went around saying he was the Messiah.

That’s why he was crucified. He was crucified because he said he was the Son of God.

So, he either, in my view, was the Son of God or he was nuts. Forget rock-and-roll messianic complexes. I mean Charlie Manson-type delirium.

And I find it hard to accept that all the millions and millions of lives, half the Earth, for 2,000 years have been touched, have felt their lives touched and inspired by some nutter.

I don’t believe it.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • gingoro

    C S Lewis’ point on Christ!

  • Tim

    That’s essentially C.S.’s trilema, minus the liar bit. But notions of being the messiah and a “son of God” in the backdrop of 2nd temple eschatology is not synonymous with being God. We see that claim of course in records of Jesus afterwards. But how much of that is history vs legend adds another option to the trilema.

  • Phil Miller

    This sounds almost exactly like what Bono says in Michka Assayas’ book, Bono from 2006, like almost verbatim. Not that I’m complaining. But for those of us who are longtime U2 fans, this isn’t anything surprising.

  • Alan Rose

    Hi Tim, you ought to read God Crucified by Richard Bauckham.

  • Andrew Dowling

    This is repeating Lewis’s claim, and really is ignorant of literary context and biblical scholarship.

  • Dean

    Not the best argument out there anymore (not sure if it ever was but it did sound convincing to me as a young Evangelical), but how can anyone hate on Bono! C’mon guys!

  • Wyman Richardson

    Would you disagree with the general idea that Jesus said things about himself that, if untrue, would indicate that he had some real mental instability?

  • Patrick

    I think it makes perfectly good logic.

    Incidentally, Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man coming in the clouds of glory, sitting at the right hand of power way more than any other Messianic title and any person in the ANE understood immediately that person was claiming to be the creator God.

    2cd temple Jews did expect a Divine man because of Daniel chapter 7, Daniel Boyarin has done excellent work demonstrating this. They just didn’t think Jesus was that guy.

    The Son of Man in the clouds is more of a claim to Divinity than Son of God is textually. All Israel’s kings were a “Son of God”, all Israel was a “Son of God”. Son of Man in the clouds is an unmistakable claim to being the creator in the ANE(in the clouds even with the pagans meant their creator god).

    So, Bono is accurate, Jesus did claim to be the creator in several variant ways( He claimed to be Ego Eimi repeatedly as well just like YHWH did in Exodus). We don’t need to prove Messiah = Divinity for this purpose.

  • Andrew Dowling

    Sorry, to claim the title “son of man,” in Daniel or elsewhere, equates to Yawheh is an incredibly fringe position.

  • Patrick

    Within the OT text itself, there are 27 mentions of someone “in the clouds”. 26 are clearly YHWH, the Danielic Son of Man being #27.

    It would be quite a bizarre literary feat knowing how consistent the bible is in it’s approach to such questions for Daniel to have the last allusion in the OT to “coming in the clouds” and him break this motif.

    Caiaphas sure had no trouble figuring it out.