.jpg)
“Who do you say that I am?” Jesus asks his disciples. It's the question at the heart of Lent, isn’t it. After all, if we are going to journey with Jesus for six weeks, if we are going to find meaning in the cross at end of that journey, then it helps to know who he is. And not only who is he, but why does he matter?
We’ll be exploring those questions through Lent this year. There is no one set defintion of who Jesus is, of why his life mattered 2000 years ago and still matters to us now. There are, however, various opinions, theories, about him, so we’ll explore five of more well known ones over the next five weeks. I hope that by the end, you’ll have a better sense of who Jesu is for you.
Because in the end, it's a personal decision. The United Church is not a church that will tell you how to think. None of these theories or definitions is “right” and the rest “wrong.” Theologian Doug Hall says we should be open to all understandings as each one has something to teach us and no one definition can fully define who Jesus is and was.
In fact, as we explore different understandings of Jesus, I would actually encourage you to spend as much time reflecting on those theories and definitions which bother you as you do on those that appeal to you. As the Jesus Seminar, a group of Jesus scholars who spent many years studying the gospels together famously said -- beware of a Jesus who is entirely amenable to your own point of view.
The five basic definitions we'll be working with come from the Faith Exploration curriculum of the United Church, which is used for affirmation of faith (confirmation) for adults. We’ll be moving back and forth between Christology, the study of Jesus, and Soteriology, the study of salvation. In other words, we'll be looking at who Jesus was and is and what he did and does.
So, the first definition of Jesus is: Jesus is God’s only son, born of the Virgin Mary. He is both human and God. Anyone who believes in Jesus and accepts him as savior will have eternal life in heaven.
I imagine some of you are quite comfortable with that definition, others don't like any of it, and some are okay with some parts and not so sure about others. It's what we call a classic definition of Jesus. The first part is christology, it defines who Jesus is, son of God, born of a virgin, human and God. It comes straight from the traditional creeds, statements of belief dating back to the 4thcentury.
The second part is soteriology, it tells us what Jesus did, how he saves us. If you're thinking, I don't think J saves us at all, well, there are many ways of understanding what that means,and by the time we're done our series, you might be surprised about your views on being saved.
So, Jesus as the son of God, born of a virgin, fully human, fully divine. What does “son of God” mean, exactly? Aren't we all sons and daughters of God? Well, according to this definition, yes and no. Jesus as the son of God means that he is part of God, they are part of one another. Think of John 1, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Jesus' life on earth lasted around 30 years, but as the son of God he was with God from the beginning and is still with God, part of God, today. That's where the whole fully human, fully divine idea comes from. Jesus was fully human during his life, not just God in a human costume. And yet God was fully present in Jesus, living the human experience to fullest.
This understanding of God being fully present in Jesus is essential to several definitions of who Jesus was and what he did. They are built on the idea that through Jesus, God had the full human experience: fear, anxiety, love, laughter, sorrow and even/especially, suffering.
As for born of the virgin Mary, well, most likely that was added on. For one thing, it's based on a faulty translation of Isaiah, that verse about a virgin shall conceive? The proper translation is “young woman.”
Plus, in that era, many demi-gods and heroes were born of virgins. It was almost like pre-requisite for being taken seriously as religious figure. That's not to say it's absolutely not true, it's just not absolutely true either.
Those are the basics of the christology side of the definition, who Jesus is. Now for the soteriology side, what he did and does. “Whoever believes in him as saviour will have eternal life.” For many people today, this sounds like the common, very traditional understanding of Jesus. He died for our sins, he saves us from death, he brings us to eternal life.
Interesting thing is, this definition doesn't actually say Jesus died for our sins, it just says Jesus is our saviour, but we tend to read that into this definition because it's such a common understanding. But Jesus dying for our sins isn't the only way of understanding him as our saviour. There are actually three theories of atonement, as are called, three theories of how Jesus' death reconciles us to God, how it puts us in right relationship with God. For today we'll look at the theory that is probably familiar to most of you, but in the weeks to come we'll consider other theories and what they mean to our faith.
So, Jesus dying for our sins, also known as theory of salvation through sacrifice or satisfaction.Despite being so well known today, this was not the first theory of salvation,it was actually created in the 11thcentury by a monk known as Anselm. It's based on the idea that we all sin, therefore we are all guilty and a price must be paid for our sin.
Doug Hall explains it by saying Anselm believes “infinite human guilt can only be atoned for by perfect human innocence.”
Because Jesus was both human and divine, his death could atone for our sin, could bring us closer to God. Sin separates us from G, but through Jesus, we are brought back into right relationship with God.
There are some problems with this theory if we start examining it more closely. Theologian Mary Daly famously called it “divine child abuse-”God the Father sends “his” son to be killed for our sins. It can seem very harsh and that makes it easy to reject this theory.
But as I mentioned earlier, Doug Hall cautions us to remain open to all theories, because there is something we can learn from each one. He refers to the work of Paul Tillich, who said that each theory of atonement addresses a different type of anxiety. He says the theory of Jesus saving us through sacrifice helps us face our anxiety of guilt and condemnation.
Don't know about you, but I'm a little too familiar with guilt. Some of it is typical trying to be a good person kind of stuff- I hurt someone's feelings, I let someone down, I didn't do a good job on something important.
The thing is, while Anselm's society went too heavily into guilt and almost manufactured it, our society is the opposite. We actively encourage people to avoid guilt, “it's not your fault,” “you did your best,” “it could have happened to anyone,” and so on. Plus we are great at putting the blame on others.
This is not always helpful, especially when the guilt is heavier than just letting someone down. Sometimes we have guilt where we know we really did something hurtful, we really did something wrong, against what believe to be right. When that happens, the only thing that makes things better is grace, forgiveness, being made right with God, and if possible, with the person or situation where we caused pain.
The example that helped me to understand this more deeply was that of a couple whose son fell in the fire when were camping and was severely burned. People tried to say, oh it's not your fault, but couple knew it was. They were heavy drinkers, they had been drunk when he fell in.
Their son survived, but the guilt nearly killed them at first. Guilt sent them first to AA, where they stopped drinking, and then back to the Catholic church, where they had grown up. And in the Catholic church they found grace, they found peace, through the idea that Jesus had died for their sins, had taken their guilt on him. It helped them to believe they could be forgiven and they could live with themselves again.
We see elements of this type of Atonement in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada. Canada as a nation must atone for wrongs done to Indigenous people over the past centuries. Saying we're sorry isn't enough, we have to make things right, we have to repair the damage done as best we can.
In the same way, seeing Jesus' death on the cross as sacrifice that atones for our wrongs, our sins, is meant to transform us and way we live, so that we live differently, we live in a way that no longer encourages our previous behaviour.
That sense of forgiveness, grace and transformation can be very powerful, which is where all those beautiful old hymns we're singing today come from. We may not be comfortable with some of the imagery, especially when it talks about blood, but the writers were passionate in their belief that they had been touched by grace through Jesus' death, that it helped them to change and be better people even though they didn't deserve a second chance. Do you need to be saved? Even if the imagery makes you uncomfortable, spend some time with that question this week. fter all, don't we all make mistakes? And don't we all need a second chance sometimes?
Do you need to be saved? Even if the imagery makes you uncomfortable, spend some time with that question this week. fter all, don't we all make mistakes? And don't we all need a second chance sometimes?