Michael R. Jordan

In todays newspaper, i ran across an article that i took issue to and i wanted to share it to see if i am correct in my line of thinking. The article in question:


One doesn't have to be a Christian scholar to determine why Christians are offended by the central theme of Da Vinci. If Jesus was exclusively human, that would have made him a sinner like the rest of us. And his death would not have brought the hope of everlasting life to the rest of us sinners. Christians have talked in the past about loving the sinner while hating the sin. Could they still love Jesus if he was only human?
http://winsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...4/1594669.html

Now according to Ehrman, Adoptionists believe JC was chosen by God but "...he was not himself divine." (Ehrman, Page 3, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings) Yet, in contrast to Adler's article, Ehrman claims that Adoptionists aver JC to have still been the sacrifice "...for the sins of the world,..." and he is "...the savior of the world." (Ibid)

Now, it would seem entirely possible to believe in a 100% human JC but yet still hold that his death "brought hope of everlasting life". i believe the only way Adler can excuse himself of error is to deny Adoptionists as Christians because they deny the trilogy established in Nicea and so on.

Or is there error in my reasoning?

mikem

I don't think either of you is wrong particularly. Adler appears to be writing about evangelicals who have a particular metaphysical interpretation of atonement - you probably know the one. Only God could bridge the gap created by Adam's sin, so it had to be God punishing God. Substitutionary atonement. So the idea that Jesus was only human undermines their theory of the atonement.

Not all Christians believe in the "substitutionary atonement" however. Liberal Christians would say that the substitutionary atonement was read into the New Testament rather than read out of it, and that there are a variety of metaphors in the NT to describe what is essentially a mystery. They would add that the notion of God requiring a blood sacrifice before he can forgive us is frankly repugnant. In the NT one reads of being freed from bondage to the slavery of sin. One reads of the death of Christ as a victory over sin, and one also reads of it as reconciling God and man - 2 Corinthians 5:19 "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" Some Christians read that as if God was literally in Christ. Others read it as God was reconciling the world to Himself THROUGH Christ.

There appears to be one verse in Hebrews that says that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22), but it seems to be an isolated case. There are verses about redemption through Christ's blood, but these need not imply a metaphysical theory of substitutionary atonement. There are passages that relate back to Jewish ritual, but as I understand it, animal sacrifice was not a way of obtaining God's forgiveness, but an expression of the costliness of that forgiveness. However, I would have to read up on that a little more.

I'm not aware that Paul ever linked the efficacy of the Cross to whether Jesus was Divine. In Romans 5:17, at the end of long passage about the death of Christ, it is Jesus humanity that is emphasised. Also, Paul himself appears to have spoken in adoptionist terms at Romans 1:4.

In the Middle Ages, Peter Abelard proposed an "exemplary theory" ot the atonement, which is that that the death of Jesus, rather than being an objective "tit for tat", works on us subjectively, by drawing our hearts to God through contemplation of Jesus selfless sacrifice.

Many modern Christians hold a similar view - that Jesus death somehow shows us the depth of God's love for us. This is because Jesus was so identified with God's will, that as St John says "He who has seen me has seen the Father".

Hope this helps.

Michael R. Jordan

Adler didnt specify which christian group he was speaking of and i certainly dont see any reason to believe he didnt intend on the generalization that his article suggests. It is entirely possible, of course, that i missed some implicit deductive reasoning that Adler assumes his readers will detect. :huh:

RUmike

I think what a lot of people (and most Christians) don't realize is that to underplay Jesus' full humanity is just as much a heresy as to underplay his divinity.

mikem

He appeared to be referring to Christians who believe in substitutionary atonement, and the group that immediately sprung to my mind was Evangelicals, so I assumed that he meant them. I might be wrong. However he does seem to be saying that unless Jesus was God, he would not have been sinless, and had he not been sinless, he could not have been a sacrifice for our sins. I think that he is wrong, (or at least those Christians are wrong who beleive that, I have no idea whatr Adler himself believes!) Ehrman is right, as are you.

Just to add to what I wrote yesterday. During the 2nd Temple period, the idea developed in Judaism of the vicarious sufferings of the martyr. (Isaiah 53 seems to be an example of this idea). The death of the martyr was seen as vicarious, i.e God accepted it as a sin offering, a sacrifice. The jews did not regard their martyrs as either divine or sinless, although they did regard them as "righteous", and their death was accepted by God as having merit. (This idea survives in the Roman Catholic belief in the "merits of the saints"). In the New Testament Isaiah 53 is taken up and applied to Jesus, but not really developed. It may lie behind John 11:50, where the High Priest says that it is better that one man die than that the whole nation perish. Jesus is the scapegoat. Isaiah 53 is also quoted in Acts 8, and in 1 Peter 2:22

In the references to Jesus as being the fulfilment of Isaiah 53, the notion of divinity appears to play no role. And in those verses which speak of Jesus being sinless, like Hebrews 4:15, sinless is spoken of not so much as a state of being, but as a goal achieved, in spite of temptation.