During and after Holy Week, the historical significance of the Resurrection and debates about the authenticity of the Gospels become quite popular. I genuinely appreciate the many efforts made by Catholics in the public square to defend the reliability of Scripture and other proofs that establish the truth of the Resurrection. It is this event more than any other that occupies the central place in the wider debate over the divinity of Christ.
While subtracting nothing from these efforts, which are necessary now more than ever, I also came across a different approach to the question that somewhat mirrored my own pre-Catholic thinking on the nature of Christ. It comes from Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Emile, specifically the Profession of Faith of a Savoyard Vicar (223&224). While there is no question that Rousseau held the Church in contempt, the way in which he argues for the divinity of Christ is unique and interesting all the same.
Especially since, for Rousseau, His divinity can be established without miracles or even the Resurrection. By way of comparing the life and teachings of Socrates with Christ, he comes to the conclusion:
“[I]f the life and death of Socrates are those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus are those of a God”
Why is this? He considers that Socrates had it easy: many of the virtues he taught had already been exemplified and taught less perfectly by contemporaries, he lived in a culture that already supported many of the things he believed, and he died relatively peacefully, philosophizing among friends.
On the other hand, Christ taught a doctrine that seemed to be entirely incompatible with the corruption and violence of His time and place, the social and intellectual climate was not at all conducive to His “pure and sublime morality”, and he willingly died a miserable and humiliating death for others.
One of the most important differences was the nature of the act of forgiveness said to have been performed by each:
“Socrates, in receiving the cup of poison, blessed indeed the weeping executioner who administered it; but Jesus, in the midst of excruciating tortures, prayed for his merciless tormentors.”
One would indeed have to choose between Jesus being “lord, liar or lunatic” given these facts, and since the latter two seem preposterously out of the question, what else can one conclude but that “the life and death of Jesus are those of a God”?
Of course in our day and age, the “lunatic” explanation becomes more plausible for many, since an act of sacrifice of that magnitude seems quite absurd to people who are practically choking on their own comforts and pleasures. But then, even in the time of Christ, those enjoying the bread and circuses, the origies and vomitoriums of Rome, must have looked at such a life in a similar way: here in the midst of all these glorious pleasures we have made for ourselves, there is a man who actually chooses to suffer, and not even for himself, but for others! Madness!
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In