"I'm quite keen on comic books," David Carradine said, playing the notorious "Bill" in volume two of Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill films. "Take my favorite superhero, Superman... The mythology is not only great, it's unique."What makes Superman unique? His superhero identity is his actual identity, Bill explains. Spider-Man is really Peter Parker. Batman is really Bruce Wayne. Like most superheroes, these two are human beings who must put on a costume in order to become their crime-fighting alter-egos. Superman's alter-ego is Clark Kent, his portrayal of a normal human being. Bill elaborates:
[It] is in that characteristic Superman stands alone. Superman didn't become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red "S", that's the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears - the glasses, the business suit - that's the costume. That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent. He's weak... he's unsure of himself... he's a coward.
Bill sums up his diatribe on superheroes with this conclusion: "Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race."
Since he was an alien from Krypton, Superman only appeared to be human. Is that also the case with Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh? Did Jesus only appear to be human?
Despite affirming Christ's full deity and full humanity in their confessions, many evangelicals and fundamentalists stray away from Jesus' human nature (pre-Fall nature). Why? Perhaps the fear of falling down a slippery slope into theological liberalism drives conservative Christians away from focusing on this essential and comforting truth.
Quite rightly, we should avoid the heresy of docetism. The title comes from the Greek word dokea, meaning "to appear." The idea that Jesus only appeared to be a man was a major challenge for Christian orthodoxy in the second and third centuries. Near the end of the first century, the Apostle John writes in light of false teachings that were at least similar to docetism.
What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life--and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--what we have seen and testify and proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:1-3, NASB).
Though the days of regular and conscious articulation of docetism have passed away, could a subtle docetism have crept in the modern church? Judging from chapter two of Vintage Jesus, Mark Driscoll believes so. After naming known heretics and cults who have either denied the full divinity or full humanity of the Savior, Driscoll writes:
Perhaps the people who most commonly prefer Jesus' divinity over his humanity in our present age are hardcore Protestant Christian fundamentalists. They are so committed to preserving the divinity of Jesus that they tend to portray his humanity as essentially overwhelmed by his divinity so that he was largely not tempted to sin, if indeed tempted at all (35).
Driscoll continues:
I first experienced this as a new Christian in a fundamentalist church where I asked the pastor a question about the temptation of Jesus mentioned throughout Scripture. He immediately took me to James 1:13, which says, "God cannot be tempted with evil." He went on to say that because Jesus is God, when the Bible says he was tempted, he was not really tempted but basically faking it. His portrait of Jesus sounded eerily similar to Superman (36, emphasis mine).
Not really tempted? This sounds similar to a Gnostic saying, "Jesus was not really in the flesh." As Driscoll notes, if Jesus only appeared to be tempted because on the outside He only appeared as a Galilean peasant, then neither could Jesus suffer or be the mediator between God and man. Unless fully human, Jesus could not represent humanity as our Substitute on the Cross.
It should be stressed that we are not saying Jesus is merely human, only fully human. In other words, Jesus contained every essential characteristic to be considered 100-percent human. On the other hand, Jesus is 100-percent God, meaning He maintained full divine essence in coming as a man. Further, He still possessed every attribute of God, just not the continual exercise of them. Paul puts it this way, "... although He existed in the form of God, [Christ Jesus] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:6-7, NASB).
Theologians sum up this reality with the phrase "he laid aside the independent exercise of his divine attribues" (Vintage Jesus, 37).
This brings many to ponder the question, could Jesus have sinned? Despite much being written on the subject, this is ultimately a mystery.
Of course, Jesus never actually sinned. He could not have been an effective mediator or propitiation for our sins if He did. However, even Adam, made in the image of God in holiness and inclined to righteousness, fell through temptation. Instead of being pervasively impacted by his sinful nature as we are, Adam was able to fall because, while perfect, he was fallible and prone to change. God alone is infallible and immutable.
Still, Jesus is not just a man with a pre-fallen nature. He is the God-man. That's precisely why whether He could or could not sin remains a mystery. The Bible does not speak explicitly to the issue and logic remains unable to dissect it, as the Incarnation itself is a mystery.
Some propose the following: 1) God cannot sin; 2) Jesus is God; 3) Therefore, Jesus cannot sin. Again, Jesus is not just God, but the God-man. He has two natures but exists as one person. One can distinguish between the two natures, but not separate them.
On the other hand, those who adamantly appeal to Jesus' divinity as the reason to dismiss any conceivability of Jesus falling to temptation need to consider the other position's logic. 1) God cannot die; 2) Jesus is God; 3) Therefore, Jesus cannot die. If God died, everything would cease to exist since God holds all things together (Acts 17:28; Col 1:17; Heb 1:3).
As Breshears rightly concludes, we need the following syllogism: 1) God cannot sin; 2) Jesus is God-man; 3) Therefore, Jesus was tempted in every way as we, but absolutely without sin (Vintage Jesus, 53).
As God, we have confidence that Jesus' atonement was infinitely valuable, sufficient for "the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2) and efficacious "to save to the uttermost those who draw near" (Heb 7:25, ESV). As a man, we have comfort that our Great High Priest sympathizes with our weaknesses as "One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:14-15). It's for this reason, in the words of John, that these things are written "so that our joy may be made complete" (1 John 1:4).
Shall we then say, Jesus is our Superman? No, He's much more. Jesus is the God-man.
