By Mike Leno “Did Jesus have an advantage over us?” The question struck a nerve and I winced inwardly. During a discussion on signs of the end, our mid-week study group had observed that Jesus’ knowledge of the future did not include the time of his second coming. He said in Matthew 24:36, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” The fact that Jesus did not have access to the same knowledge as the Father led us into a vigorous discussion about the nature of Christ. Was he human, completely? Was he divine, and if so, to what extent did he experience his divinity during his thirty-some years on earth?
Like most Christians down through the centuries, we settled on a position that Jesus was in fact completely human and at the same time completely divine but that he did not use his divine power to live from day to day. All the scriptural evidence concerning Jesus’ life suggests that he lived as a normal human being. Nevertheless, he did have access to the divine in the same way that other humans do through prayer and the Holy Spirit. The temptations of Christ also suggest, however, that he had within himself the power to perform miracles for his own advantage. He simply chose not to use that power. Settling such a momentous issue in a few minutes remains presumptuous. But at the time I was hoping we could get back to our discussion of signs of the end. But just when I thought we had averted a lengthy detour, one member of our group blurted out, “So does Christ have an advantage over us?” And I knew instantly that our agenda had changed. I have a long history with that question. I can remember as a teenager sitting in “Uncle Eddie’s” Bible class at Walla Walla Valley Academy, discussing that very question. Ten years later I gained considerable insight into the biblical evidence when taking a seminary class in Christology from Raoul Dederen. I have found throughout my years of pastoring in Oregon, Arizona, Georgia and now in California, that people continue to be interested in this issue. Unfortunately a difference on this very point often indicates a serious and persistent division among Christians even within a denomination. There are people who will respect or not respect what I have to say in conversation or from the pulpit, depending on how I answer the question, “Did Christ have an advantage over us?” Yet, in spite of the persistence of this question and considerable thought and study on the matter, I just don’t get it. I understand it all right and could probably argue effectively on either side. Jesus seems to have had an advantage in one way and no advantage in another. In the past I have argued vigorously, and I believe convincingly, that Jesus, although made like us “in every way,” was the second Adam (Rom. 5:14). So even though sharing our humanity and avoiding any divine advantage, he always maintained an edge over us when it came to avoiding sin. The results speak for themselves. He was sinless. We are not. I have often explained that edge by referring to fallen and unfallen human nature. Adam’s nature was unfallen originally – and so was Christ’s. I have to conclude, however, that our nature is fallen and therefore, unlike Jesus’ nature, at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to sin. Uncle Eddie and Dr.Dederen would certainly not approve of everything I say. But they would at least sympathize with this particular point. And we would all appeal to the New Testament as the ultimate authority. So, I understand the issue, I just don’t find it terribly relevant anymore. And the more I study the gospel, the less relevant I find it. The truth is there is very little biblical material on the subject. The New Testament writers did not dwell on the precise nature of Christ. They accepted him as God, preexisting with the Father (John 1:1, 2), they believed he was completely human, “made like his brothers in every way” (Heb. 2:17), and they regarded him as sinless (2 Cor. 5:21). And other than a few passages that echo these thoughts, that’s about all they have to say. Hebrews contains the most extensive treatment. My vigorous arguments of the past notwithstanding, the biblical passages do not precisely explain human nature, fallen or otherwise. It appears that what we think of when we talk about human nature bears little relationship to what the New Testament writers had in mind, especially with regard to phrases such as “made like his brothers in every way.” For example, on one hand we often talk as if sin is transmitted through the genes. And that seems helpful except that it could imply that one’s offspring are guilty of sins they didn’t commit. Jesus himself steered clear of that position when confronted with the man blind from birth (John 9:3). On the other hand, if the genes are not involved in what we call our sinful nature, how does that work? It does no good to appeal to some metaphysical entity called a soul or some other vaporous substance that supposedly gives us our bent to evil. Such notions were quite familiar in pre-scientific cultures but belong in the category of ghostly superstition today. I suppose if one wanted to climb out on the speculative limb of hardware versus software, the soul might be understood as the non-physical aspect of brain function. Just as a computer has hardware but is dead without a set of instructions called software, the human brain utilizes thought patterns, decisions and instructions, which may constitute a program more sophisticated than we know how to measure. Is this software program what we call “mind” or “consciousness?” Current brain theories acknowledge that consciousness arises from brain function but is itself distinct from the sum total of brain cell interactions. But being distinct does not mean separate. And no one knows for sure exactly how consciousness operates or why it arises. But is mind or consciousness really what we mean by “human nature?” If human nature is in any way comparable to software, perhaps it has a few bugs—a sin virus if you please—that has been mucking up the works for centuries. So all we need to know is how this sin virus gets passed on. But it’s not like our souls are connected through some sort of metaphysical Internet (unless of course you subscribe to a quasi-scientific eastern religious philosophy). So it seems that when it comes to inheriting anything, including the bugs in our software, we are forced back to genetics again. We know that the DNA/RNA mechanism has its own set of instructions, software if you please, that determines human function and development. And that includes brain function. It appears once again that that writer of Genesis had it right when he said that Adam “became a living soul.” He didn’t have a soul, he became one. There are no divisions between soul and body in Genesis or in science. So there appears no precise way to define “soul” or “nature” except as the sum total of everything involved in being human. And that may be inclusive but not very precise. So we have two problems with inheriting sin. First is the obvious problem of reductionism. Human nature cannot be reduced to just genetics, thought processes, or even attributes that are learned from the environment. A human being remains an integrated whole. And that makes it difficult to define a precise mechanism for transmitting sin from one person to another. The second problem is one of understanding ancient expressions. Biblical words and concepts remain rooted in a tradition of their own and belong to a pre-scientific world view. When the Psalmist, for example, speaks about being sinful from the time of conception (Ps. 51:5), we should be cautious about drawing conclusions based on modern genetics, even though our modern assumptions would lead us to do so. And when Hebrews talks about Jesus being made like us in every way, we cannot automatically assume that the author is describing a phenomenon that arises from DNA or even brain function. Biblical writers assumed the conventional wisdom of the day, which included the notions that emotions are generated in the bowels and the heart has decision-making capabilities. If you’ve ever had a stress induced stomach-ache or a bout of irritable bowel you can probably sympathize. And we still use expressions such as “speaking from the heart.” But we don’t really believe these sorts of expressions literally. Another problem in discussing how sin might be transmitted from one generation to the next is the term “guilt.” Although guilt remains associated with sin, the two are not the same. When Jesus avoided blaming the blind man or his parents he was addressing an old argument within Judaism going back to the formation of the book of Deuteronomy. Unfortunately the blessings and curses associated with keeping or forsaking the covenant had been applied rather literally and mechanically. Many of the Jews had come to believe that God automatically and always rewarded good and punished evil. And if one generation did not get it’s just rewards or punishments, the succeeding generations would. Therefore, any misfortune was a sign of God’s disfavor, and good fortune was a sign of God’s automatic reward for being good. Today we regard guilt as far less transferable. And we also realize that rewards and punishments do not necessarily occur in this life. Even in scripture there appear protests against the prevailing notion that good always gets rewarded and evil always gets punished. The books of Job and Ecclesiastes make the strongest arguments although they do not actually reject the notion of automatic justice. So it appears even more significant that Jesus regarded guilt in any generation as irrelevant to the blind man’s birth defect. We do, however, find it obvious that certain negative traits and characteristics appear in families from one generation to the next. These can include things like anti-social tendencies, alcoholism, and mental illness. But even though these traits may be inherited (and it’s not always clear whether environment or genetics is the primary mechanism); and even though these traits often lead to bad behavior and adverse consequences; they do not make a person guilty. A person may be born with alcoholic tendencies, for example, but that does not mean the person is at birth guilty of drunken behavior. We must also remember that modern genetics effectively debunks the notion that acquired characteristics are passed on to the next generation. So in spite of the obvious fact that traits are inherited, it remains extremely unlikely, if not impossible, for one to acquire a new trait and pass that on to the next generation. This raises difficult questions regarding the way we supposedly inherited sinful traits from Adam and Eve. Genetic mutations provide a possible answer. But genetic theory asserts that mutations are generally harmful; if not fatal to the organism, preventing the transmission of acquired traits. To complicate matters even more, the ancient biblical writers assumed the legal validity of corporate guilt. That is why an entire family was wiped out because of Achan’s sin (Josh. 7:24ff). While we regard such modes of justice with horror, the ancients thought it quite proper to stone an entire family for one man’s transgression. And corporate guilt could quite naturally be carried over from generation to generation. The closest we might come to that understanding is when we try to right wrongs done to specific groups in previous generations. The German government trying to make amends for the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi’s would fall into that category. But I suspect none of us, no matter how sensitive we are to corporate guilt would extend that to individual guilt. Being part German I know I am related, however remotely, to those who killed Jews. But although I feel some sense of corporate remorse, I don’t feel any personal responsibility or guilt for what happened years before I was born and by people in another country. So guilt and inherited traits remain distinct. When we say that a new-born infant is innocent, we are addressing the issue of guilt. After all, the infant has not done anything wrong, nor is she really capable of doing anything wrong—at least not yet. But if we say that the new-born has her mother’s eyes and her father’s temper, we are saying something about family traits not guilt. We are also exaggerating since studies show that behavior in the first year of life bears no correlation with behavior later in life. We are, however, operating on the correct assumption that traits can be passed from one generation to the next. Yet, even if a baby could be said to have the temper of her parents, is that sin? And that brings us to another confusing term. The term “sin” is used in at least two different ways, one to indicate bad behavior, and another to indicate a global condition which we can only assume includes “natural” tendencies. A person “born into sin,” for example, is not guilty of doing anything wrong. But the expression indicates an acknowledgment that the human race suffers from a condition known as “sin.” The Psalmist says, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5). This passage is not reflective of corporate guilt since in context David is reacting to the discovery of his transgression with Bathsheba. We can define the condition of sin as a bent toward evil, a tendency to be selfish, and an inherent alienation from God. This is a useful definition but we must acknowledge that it is an inferred definition, not one spelled out in the Bible. Still, it remains consistent with the evidence. As members of the human race, you and I had no choice in this and bear no personal guilt because of it. Yet we were born into this condition that is by definition fallen, broken, and in need of healing. Furthermore, this sinful condition inevitably leads to the commission of bad behaviors, sins, and that in turn brings guilt. And here is precisely where the discussion about the nature of Christ gets tricky. Depending on which side of the argument you put yourself the nature of Christ will on the one hand appear sinless and therefore without inherited sinful tendencies, or on the other hand appear guiltless in spite of inherited sinful tendencies. As I indicated above, I support the first option. Those who disagree with me will not approve of the idea that a sinful condition leads inevitably to committing sins. They would argue that since Jesus did not sin, he proved that the commission of sins is not inevitable. But that simply begs the question. And it flies in the face of everything we know about human nature, no matter how hard it is to define. On the other hand, one can make a strong argument from genetics that Jesus had to have sinful tendencies. But as already noted, the biblical writers were not discussing genetics. And it remains open to question how Adam and Eve’s decedents, including Jesus, could have inherited sin genetically. The more I ponder the issue in light of the gospel, however, the more I realize that the Bible does not really care about our modern questions of guilt, human nature, and genetics. Not only did the Bible writers not know anything about genetics, neither did they have any concept of sinful tendencies being passed from generation to generation. They accepted corporate guilt and even transgenerational guilt; but knew nothing regarding a physiological mechanism of inherited tendencies. That doesn’t mean the mechanism doesn’t exist. It just means the Bible writers could not have addressed the issue and had other concerns in mind. So the biblical data is of limited use if we want to understand either human nature or Christ’s nature in any way that is physiologically meaningful. The statements on the subject that do exist are few and far between. And there is no place in the Bible where a writer puts all the disparate ideas together and makes systematic dogma out of them. How could Jesus be completely human, yet completely sinless from birth? Such a question apparently did not occur to the bible writers, at least not in the same way it occurs to us. Furthermore, at no time does a biblical writer state plainly whether Jesus was at an advantage or a disadvantage over us when it came to dealing with sin. The passage that comes closest is perhaps Hebrews 2. But even that is not talking about a comparison between Jesus and the rest of humanity relative to overcoming sin. It is saying that since Jesus became like his brothers he is worthy and able to sympathize with them and help them (vs. 18). So if the biblical writers did not care about our arguments regarding Christ’s human nature, what did they care about? And here is the spectacular truth from the New Testament: everything about Jesus tells us about God and works for our benefit! The New Testament makes this point in different ways over and over again. Was Jesus God? Certainly, and that is a good thing because by that we know that God is good and that he can heal and rescue us. Was Jesus a human being? Of course, and that also works to our advantage because we are able to know God as a friend, mediator, and sympathizer. Did Jesus have an advantage over us? I suggest that either answer you give has some truth in it. It is the question that is dead wrong! It implies that there is something inherently unfair going on if Jesus was better at something than we are. Let me put it simply: the plan of salvation is not a competition. There is no universal referee demanding a level playing field. Salvation is a rescue operation, not a contest between Christ and his followers. If you’ll indulge a crude analogy, suppose we are stranded on a sinking ship. And along comes a Coast Guard helicopter to lift us off the deck. As the chopper approaches a self-appointed theologian in our group says, “I don’t want to be saved by a helicopter. The ability to fly gives the pilot too much of an advantage. He has to prove he can overcome drowning with the same disadvantages we have.” To which I would reply, “So you would rather have a drowning person try to save you?” The analogy can only be taken so far. But it illustrates two completely different approaches to salvation. One considers salvation a rescue, the other a process of human effort in overcoming sin. Do saved people overcome sin? Of course. But that is not what saves them. To have a concern for whether Jesus had some sort of advantage constitutes a relic of perfectionism and legalism. It relegates Jesus to some sort of cheerleader and coach rather than a savior. We must never lose sight of the fact that according to the New Testament, everything about Christ, his humanity, his divinity, his sinlessness, and especially his death and resurrection, are presented as doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Was Jesus an example for our behavior? Of course. All good rescuers model good behavior. But salvation is still a rescue, not a competition. Jesus did have something to prove. But that something was not that human beings can be as perfect as he is, genetically or otherwise. What he came to prove is that he is trustworthy. The author of Hebrews notes that “Every high priest… is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness” (Heb 5:1-2). So a priest was expected to deal gently with people, understanding their problems and temptations and helping rather than judging harshly. And people knew they could trust themselves to such a person since he was a human being himself and could be expected to show mercy in the face of their imperfections. This gentle-in-weakness trait is precisely what Hebrews has in mind when it talks about Christ being made like his brothers in every way. But Hebrews also cites an essential difference between Christ and his brothers. Hebrews 7 depicts Christ as unlike earthly priests because he did not have to offer a sacrifice for his own sins. And in verse 28 we find these important words. “For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.” So the Bible affirms the apparently contradictory notion that Jesus was both weak and always perfect. He never needed a sacrifice and unlike normal humans, he was always perfect. Jesus proved that he is both perfect and merciful. And that means he has proven himself trustworthy as our friend, mediator, and healer. Salvation is not a contest or test in which we are measured against a competitor who never makes a mistake. It is a rescue operation performed perfectly by a good and sympathetic friend. Our study group finally got back to signs of the end. And from Matthew 24 we concluded that the only real sign of the end is good news not bad—the success of the gospel to all the world (vs. 14). We don’t have to know all the precise details about Jesus’ nature. But we do need to know that we can trust him. |
Old Articles 
