The end, cruel joke or divine allusion?

I've read comments from other threads, relating to surprise at the end of the second epilogue. The hapiness, the rapid rebirth. That's very true, and at first, during the feet kissing (Christ figure?) I was intrigued by the turn of events. The resurrection/transfiguration also seemed rapid to me (Christ figure?, following in the line of 'Abraham´? as the book called the land).
But, immediately upon finishing the book, I was reminded of the seen with Rodion in his room, entertaining the doctor. He was nice, charming, and put everyone at ease. But there was that irony... it was an act to deceive and calm their minds. I couldn't help but feel like Rodion's sarcastic, bitter smile was shining behind the words as I completed the book.
Would it really have been possible for this man to abandon the theory, his own mentality, after one year in prison. He seems to have taken on the cloak of ignorance, looking at the countryside as immovable, seperated from time and even beautiful in itself. He advocates the very natural, inherent lovely life he condemns in the other men. 'could they care so much for a ray of sunshine' yet his own transformation comes ´bathed in sunshine´.
I immediately began inwardly screaming, 'farce! What a cruel joke! and yet deceiving so many.' But, now that I have calmed down, I wonder if this is correct.
Is the second epilogue a cruel joke, a grand allusion to a tormented Christ, or really an advocation of ignorant joy?

I thought Raskolnikov realised that he could not find peace and happiness with his earlier state of mind. Even though he tried to justify his actions, he could not persuaded even himself that he had done the right thing. So he decided to follow a simpler route.

The Book Club discussed this book couple of months ago. You might find these links interesting:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=12370

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=12602

Hello, PVSpud, welcome to the forum.
I have always thought Raskolnikov a fictional character with some of the most depth I have encountered in many novels, but I have never seen him this way. I can certainly see what you mean with the analogy of tormented Christ, but, as Scheherazade mentioned, he found much more peace of mind through simplicity and honesty. Any reader can easily identify his toil after the double-murder, and, for a greater part of the novel, Raskolnikov merely attempts justifying his actions in his own mind. For obvious reasons, he cannot; while holding all his frustration in, he finally submitted to his faults and paid his dues, so to speak.
I agree, I felt very surprised by his immense rehabilitation in the end, interacting with other prisoners, the doctor, and his visitors. I would like to think that even if he admitted himself to the crime, and spent time in prison, that seemed society's means of forgiveness; but, while in prison, he found a manner to forgive himself additionally.
Interesting observation, PVSpud. I would like to hear more of what you have to say. :)