I see a lot of chatter about the new trailer for the forthcoming Superman movie, Man of Steel. As Peter Enns noted on Facebook, “I think this will be the most overtly ‘messianic’ of all the Superman films.” If you watch the trailer I think you’ll agree with this observation, which raises a question that has always fascinated me about the Superman franchise: Superman is a messianic figure, so how does that impact our idea of a messiah? How does this relate to Christian depictions of Jesus? Superman appears human, but he is something superior, and he is from another world. Christianity wrestled with whether or not the idea of Jesus’ divinity meant the same for him or if there was a need to emphasize that he was as human as the rest of us. Is Jesus “like” us merely or is Jesus one of us? How one answers this questions says a lot about their Christology.
Watch the trailer:
the archives near Emmaus 
Clearly not an unintentional messiah complex.
Was not Jesus super?
Adam:
Quite intentional.
Andrew:
Of course, but what do we mean by that? Is Jesus super like Superman? Could he have flown about saving the world pre-resurrection? Is his “other world” identity so strong that it overwhelms his “this world” identity?
I’m sure his ‘divinity’ was perfectly balanced against his ‘humanity’, but neither nature was absent altogether, and he was fully both.
I don’t know if he was faster than a speeding bullet, but I know he could walk on water, raise the dead, and forgive us our sins, just as I know he hungered, was tempted, and tired.
Yes, but Peter walked on water (though briefly). Elijah and Elisha raised the dead. The High Priest could offer sacrifices in the Temple that resulted in the forgiveness of sins. Do these things tell us Jesus is divine?
Yes Peter did indeed!
So did Elija and Elisha!
(You make a very astute observation!)
So what do we make of that? (… given that Peter, Elijah, and Elisha all have no claim to be divine)
Doesn’t that say something about humanity, given faith?
It seems to say more about humanity as it relates to performing the unusual than it does divinity, no?
Note: I do not deny Jesus’ divinity. What I am pondering is how we speak of Jesus as divine, yet fully human without minimizing his humanity. The Superman juxtaposition is helpful because Superman is made to appear human, but he isn’t human. Superman is something superior to humanity. Now, we may say this is true of Jesus as well, but how do we do that without it making Jesus something non-human?
In some sense – yes.
Put another way, I believe it says most about the defect of sin, and the limitations of our fallen state. Perhaps the unusual wouldn’t be so unusual if our faiths were perfect, no?
That is difficult to know. I wrestle with biblical language emphasizing human faith over against biblical language emphasizing divine sovereignty. If I have faith to do something God doesn’t want me to do can I do it? Is faith merely believing something without doubt, or does the trust element demand Spirit leading, as Jesus is depicted to have been lead in the Gospels?
The only character we find in Scripture who is present as a sinless human is Adam and Eve, pre-rebellion. I don’t know of anyone (Philo? Josephus? early Christian thinkers?) who has proposed the idea that Adam could do great feats.
Brian, I think that’s the point. Our humanity is limited by sin. Jesus’ humanity was not. We should not try to force Jesus into the humanity we experience on a daily basis – since that’s a poor reflection of humanity.
Sin is what minimizes humanity and so too our perception, so Jesus’ humanity as something far more than we can imagine, should not and cannot be minimized (except in our minds).
By ‘non-human’ do you mean ‘non-sinful-human’, for otherwise Jesus was ‘fully-human’ while you and I, unfortunately, are not (yet).
Agreed. Orthodox Christology presents Jesus as above sin and this makes him different in that sense, but if Jesus’ sinlessness made him a Superman, can the author of Hebrews speak of a Jesus who was tempted like us? Why doesn’t Jesus say, “I could have slaughtered you all!” rather than saying he could have called upon God to send angels to defend him? Also, Jesus’ resurrected body is presented as quite extraordinary, signifying that being human post-resurrection is something greater than human pre-resurrection. What would be the difference between Jesus the man who can do great feats pre-resurrection and Jesus who does things like appear/disappear, walk through walls, ascend into the heavens post-resurrection?
I think we need to ‘level-set’ what we mean by ‘superman’ and ‘human’.
I think, by ‘superman’ you mean something more than us (by potential). If by ‘superman’ you mean not-human, I’d not accept that description of Jesus, no.
Given the first definition, given that Jesus did not sin, I would have to commit to saying Jesus was something more than us (so yes – superman in every sense except meaning ‘not from earth’). Since our sin lessens us from how we were intended, I would also have to say that given perfect faith, we would likewise would be ‘superman’ (the metaphor isn’t perfect)
With respect to your question about Him being tempted – temptation by itself is not an indication of our fallen state, succumbing to temptation is. When Jesus prayed late into the night, I have no doubt he was ‘tempted’ to sleep, yet he did not.
With respect to your question about calling on God to send angels, I think that is more a question about the Trinity, than about Jesus’ humanity, but I would point out about His resurrected body that he appeared in his resurrected body before resurrection [Luke 9:29-31] so it harkens back to the discussion about humanity’s true nature being something more than we currently experience. I’d also point however that His resurrection body from the grave, though ‘super’ was the same body he took with him into the grave. His wounds were still manifest in his flesh.
Let’s use potentiality because I think that is a helpful category. Jesus as a human is compared to Adam, right? Adam and Jesus aren’t differentiated because Adam is human and Jesus is superior ontologically (even if we assume this to be true in the sense that Jesus has a divine nature while Adam does not), but because Adam disobeyed God opening the door for further rebellion and Jesus obeyed opening the door for further reconciliation. If Adam (I’m saying this as a theological hypothetical since I wouldn’t defend a literal, historical Adam, per se) does not sin is he equal to Jesus as a human? When we are resurrected to be like Jesus will we be equal to Jesus as a human, ontologically (not categorically, since Jesus is the only begotten Son)?
Let’s set aside morality for a minute, because Jesus’ sinlessness is superior in that sense, obviously, but Mother Teresa is more moral than Hitler and that doesn’t make her a superhuman in comparison, right? What I am wondering is whether or not Jesus had an advantage not presented to Adam or anyone else? I agree that Jesus’ humanity is humanity fully realized, but he is human nevertheless.
Another way (maybe simpler) to ask this is how would you differentiate Christian talk about Jesus as the “God-man,” emphasizing Jesus as a real man from our mythology regarding a “Superman” who is not quite a man in reality, but merely appearance?
Is that S shaped like a serpent or a snake?
Jesus had an advantage not presented to Adam or anyone else? That would make him inhuman and therefore inaccessible. The Name is set on high but is not inaccessible. (Psalm 148:13) The root for set on high is the root for a retreat also. And we are to seek retreat – e.g. Psalm 9:10 and יהוה will be a retreat for the crushed // a retreat in times of trouble. The task of creation and redemption is completed – and is to give us ‘hope’ also, a full and unfettered hope, in the midst of trouble.
Bob
It may be an “s” and a “snake!” 😉
If I understand you correctly you are saying that for Jesus to be truly human he must have faced the same limitations as us, even if he did it better than us.
Yes – but I even draw the line at the word ‘better’. We are to be holy as he is holy; we are to be perfect as he is perfect. But this is not an imagined perfectionism. It is known through faith and through the gifts that he has for humanity (the same gifts as known in the presence of Yhwh in Psalm 68). There is nothing theoretical or confessional here – it is our everyday action in this One who teaches us knowledge even in the midst of our enemies (Psalm 23). Sorry – can’t explain further :). [run the purity theme through the psalms beginning at psalm 2 – not kiss the son, but kiss with purity = the holy kiss; and the comment in 1 John – one who has this hope purifies the self even as he is pure.]
Surely Man of Steel can’t be more overtly christological than Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns … unless Mel Gibson and Paul Crouch signed on as executive producers and I missed it. I’m a Christian, and a student of Christology to boot, and even I winced at how over-the-top that one got.
Bob
It seems like you are introducing a new angle to the discussion. Christians talk about Jesus as having lived a sinless life, i.e., sinless from birth to death. Obviously, I am disqualified to match that record. It seems like you are saying something different, though it appears you don’t have time to give the explanation your comment deserves! If you have time I hope you’ll come back and expound.
Darren
I don’t remember Superman Returns, though I presume I saw it, I think. Honestly, Superman is one of the less interesting characters as far as a plot line is concerned in my opinion. The other-worldliness disinterest me. I prefer someone more human, like Spiderman, and therefore I’ve seen all of the Spiderman movies!
The Singer film has Superman hovering over the earth in a cruciform pose; voiceover from Jor’el talking about how he is sending his only son to the people who need him, but that they will reject him (if memory serves); and a “new atheism” sub-plot about the world not needing Superman (and it turns out, they do!).
I think you’re right that, as a so-called “Christ figure,” the character runs up against the limits of the analogy awfully quick. In most treatments he is the outsider who is never quite truly “human.” (It’s his relationship with the Kents, when done well, that mitigates that lack.)
give the explanation your comment deserves, – ah – Brian, there was an element of humour in my comment:- I worry about the problem of explanation – it gives us power over the relationship – a power we do not have. But this occurred to me – imagine the perfection required (e.g. Psalm 26 I will walk in my completeness’ and let it be a metaphor – as are the 1400 virgins of revelation – then let God incarnate the metaphor in you. This requires more work than the rich young man of Mark was willing to give, but there is a promise that the work will be completed in whoever begins to follow this Jesus. Is that enough explanation? (A text-box worth of it.) Jesus is not superman – but superman can give us a bit of the same boldness.
Brian, you’re asking very insightful questions.
Without forcing you to defend a historical ‘Adam’, would I say that a pre-sin Adam and Jesus are the same ontologically (as humans). Yes. Both were created in the image of God, and both stood before God without shame (because both were equally justified with respect to the law.
However, I would distinguish one from the other ontologically by suggesting speculatively that Adam was filled with the Holy Spirit before he sinned, but that he lost the fullness of God when he sinned (since the Spirit is grieved by sin [Eph 4:30]), whereas Jesus was filled with the whole fullness of God from birth [Col 2:9][Luke 1:15]. If Adam lost anything, it was that from birth we are not filled with the fullness of God. Nevertheless we may also be like Jesus ‘filled with the wholeness of God’ [Eph 3:19]. (See also [Eze 36:27])
What does that mean for us? Is Mother Teresa really more moral than Hitler? No! All fall short of the glory of God, no one is sinless. Whatever sin Mother Teresa has in her life, or Hitler, or either of us – all are in need of a redeemer. God intensely hates all sin equally. Biblically, that doesn’t make her a superhuman in comparison.
Did Jesus therefore have an advantage? Calvinists would say ‘yes’. Calvinists would also say that Jesus could not sin. I am not a Calvinist however. Jesus’ temptation was very real, and I believe he could have yielded to it, but did not. I saw this because we see Him stressing over his decisions (bleeding blood, asking if it be God’s will to remove the cup .. etc). If Jesus did not possess weakness, he could not truly sympathize with our weakness. This is why his strength is truly remarkable!
Nevertheless Jesus did have an advantage, but not a supra-human one! Even if Jesus was filled with the fullness of God from birth (which one might argue is an advantage), Adam had this same thing, and you and I may have it in Christ. As long as Jesus remained obedient he had an advantage. If Jesus had an advantage then, it is only because you and I disadvantage ourselves, which is why I argue there is a difference between susceptibility to sin and temptation.
This seems like it is going to come down to differences in the concepts of justification and sanctification. So I would agree that Mother Teressa and Hitler both need Christ to be justified. And both need the Holy Spirit for sanctification. But in the path toward santification, Mother Teressa is closer to Christ because she is being sanctified through the work of the holy spirit in her life, a work that she is dependent on the Holy Sprit for, but at the same time requires her active participation.
So if both Adam (pre-sin) and Jesus were ontologically the same, post-sin, it is not just that Adam requires Christ justification in order to be the same potential as Christ, but also Jesus has no need for complete sanctification because Christ is already sanctified. But Adam, even when justified, still requires the work of the holy spirit to do the good works that are potential to him.
either way, it made me cry. like a man.
Andrew:
I would agree that Adam’s relationship to God’s Spirit is more akin to our own when “filled with the Spirit” in the New Covenant. I think Jesus was filled as a human as well, but as you note he is portrayed as having something more–fullness, unique oneness with God. Likewise, we’d agree that Jesus’ temptations were real. The whole “could Jesus sin” question is interesting, but hypothetical beyond the point of being constructive since the confession is that he did not sin, but he was tempted. So when it comes down to it I think we would agree that Jesus’ humanity is like our own, but he remained perfectly in the will of the Father and we do not do this. I don’t think this makes Jesus a “superman.”
Adam I agree.
I don’t think sanctification is the only purpose of the Holy Spirit though. Even if Jesus was fully sanctified, it was by way of the Holy Spirit he executed miracles, he obtained perfect faith and strength, it was by the Holy Spirit he cast out demons, etc.
So, like Adam, Jesus also needed the Holy Spirit to do the good words that were actualized by him. The difference is how perfectly Jesus communed with the Spirit, while Adam did not. Communion with the Holy Spirit, in some sense, defines the covenant.
He’s uberman! He’s uber Messiah, then.
Brian,
You let, Darren off too easily! If you really wanted to know about the christological issue you are pursuing through this post, you should have pressed Darren harder; he’s the one around here with his PhD from Aberdeen, and specializing in christology to boot! 🙂
Brian – I want to pick up on this unique oneness: yes Jesus is the first born – but not alone, the firstborn of many children; and as the unique is to be propagated to many – so also in the oneness. John 17 is the key passage there – building I would think, on the Shema – Deut 6:4 (also used by Paul in Romans). So again the unique oneness does not make him distant from us who follow and who are transformed into his likeness – see also Psalm 17 (read it as both elect and enemy) and note the last verse: I in righteousness will gaze on your face // I will be satisfied to awaken in your similitude. So we must be awake – and not just in some future disembodied state. It is the resurrection of the body that we believe in… This waking and sleeping is first noted in Psalm 3 and last in Psalm 139. And Hebrews commands us to wake from our sleep and rise from the dead into the light of Christ that is given.
Bobby
If I let Darren off the hook it is because I didn’t see where I needed to keep him there. What did I miss?
Bob
I understand that we should pursue Jesus’ example, but I don’t quite understand some of the points you make, such as “let God incarnate the metaphor in you” and the call to give more of ourselves than the rich young ruler. Likewise, I understand the idea of living the resurrection life now, but what does that mean for you? Are you arguing for a sort of obtainable perfectionism?
Well, you asked this in your post:
Christianity wrestled with whether or not the idea of Jesus’ divinity meant the same for him or if there was a need to emphasize that he was as human as the rest of us. Is Jesus “like” us merely or is Jesus one of us?
I thought you were seeking more nuance on this. And Darren would be just the guy to provide that.
Ah, I gotcha. I’d be happy to know more of Darren’s thoughts if he has more to offer!
He definitely has more to offer, but maybe not the time. Anyway, Darren is a good bro, and an excellent theologian!
a sort of obtainable perfectionism? Let’s say rather approaching and entering an obtained perfectionism (Hebrews). And for perfect – use rather the word complete, and consider the ‘walk in completeness’ theme in the psalms. (Psalms 1, 15, 19:8, 14, 26:1, 11, and so on to 101:2, 6, up to 119:1). English perfect sounds like you are passing an examination. This is a failing metaphor. Consider particularly the centre of Psalm 18 verses 24, 26, 31, 33. It is a boldness open to correction – in contrast with the accusation of Psalm 50:17 cited in Romans 2:17-24. The accusation is against those who profess knowledge but fail to act in the obedience of faith.
Give more of ourselves? No – the rich young man went away sad. He gave nothing. This is the only instance in Mark of anyone who receives a personal invitation from Jesus to follow him and who refuses (JBL Hicks – Markan discipleship according to Malachi, the significance of μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς in the Story of the Rich Man Mark 10:17-22 Vol 132 No 1 p 180).
I haven’t read Hicks in full yet – but I really like the direction he is going in because he is seeing in the TNK the completeness of the Gospel as I have seen it in the psalms. He suggests that the rich man stands for the nation and its role as one which is elect, loved, and under governance of the Lord). So the loved, elect nation must not make Mammon its priority, i.e. this has political implications. Now that would be a super-change in attitude. No more tax havens, no more spending on self-protection in fear…
Have I explained? Or have I not rather invited – into a teaching that does not depend on explanations or even understanding, but on prayer, admission of trouble, and a new life? The church’s ‘explanations’ have led to power structures and persecution. Our indoctrination sometimes results in prejudice and self-protection, a blindness every bit as dark as any we read of in Scripture. What then should we do? As you do – care for the poor and the marginalized, undo the bindings of culture – gotta learn what they are, of course – grow where you are placed and where you are led, This is not the work of words that explain, but the work of the Logos and the Spirit within – both the individual and the nation. I cannot explain it.
bobmacdonald, it’s interesting you see [Psa 50:17] in [Rom 2:17-24].
If I remember correctly, Bryan Singer made the last Superman film with the intention of making it a modern day Messiah story. (With the story of Jesus being a major influence upon his mythos of Superman.) Personally, I found that aspect to be about the only redeeming quality of the film.
However, with the direction the creators are DC comics are moving in, I don’t believe there will be too much emphasis on this. Of course, it’s going to be impossible to completely ignore, but I’m feeling that the movie will be more influenced by issues like immigration than theology. (A stranger in a strange land…)