C.S. Lewis famously argued that Jesus’s explicit claims to divinity leave humanity with no option to view him merely as a great moral teacher. In his book Mere Christianity, Lewis proposed a famous philosophical dilemma often called "Lewis's Trilemma": Jesus is either a Liar, a Lunatic, or Lord (God). [1, 2, 3]"It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out."
C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters.
The "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" Argument
Lewis reasoned through the following logical points:
- The Claim: Jesus did not just teach good morals; he claimed to forgive sins, exist before Abraham, and be the Son of God—making himself equal to God. [1, 2, 3]
- If He was a Liar: If Jesus knew he wasn't God and taught it anyway, he would be a malicious deceiver and a terrible moral teacher, which contradicts his teachings. [1, 2]
- If He was a Lunatic: If he believed he was God but wasn't, he would be insane, comparable to someone claiming to be a poached egg. [1, 2]
- Conclusion (Lord): Since Jesus's teachings show profound psychological balance and wisdom, Lewis argued he could be neither a deceiver nor a madman. Therefore, he must be who he claimed to be: Lord and God. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Lewis forcefully rejected the patronizing idea that someone can simply respect Jesus as a "great human teacher". In Mere Christianity, he summarized the stance: [1, 2, 3]
"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—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—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."
Ahhhh! Thats better! Thanks for the reminder!