Book016

Jesus, the Redeemer

Problems with the doctrine of redemption

We may start this subject wondering: is the traditional interpretation of "the work of Christ," as understood for centuries, a valid interpretation? The answer is: probably no. Why? The reason is, in short, that the basis for that interpretation is unfounded, as I'll explain.

Paul, the first interpreter of Jesus, and Paul's interpreters after him, including Augustine, would have given a different meaning to Jesus' death, had they known what we know today. That is why I think that the doctrine of redemption must be reinterpreted.

On the positive side, we must say that Jesus, who has been identified mainly as the Redeemer, had to be more than a prophet, a teacher or a model; on this basis alone, his memory wouldn't have survived.

There is no doubt that the main reason for the survival of his memory was his resurrection, which includes or signifies acceptance or confirmation of his death, from God.

The subject of redemption involves: God, Jesus, Church, Bible, individual Christians and all of mankind. We'll deal with all of them, although not in this order.

Mentality of sin in the Old and New Testament

Since all the Old and New Testament are covered by the shadow of sin and guilt, and the need of a remedy or redemption, the concept of redemption as we have understood it, "fits" well to the mentality of the Jewish people and early Christians of that time.

The Bible begins with the creation by God of Adam and Eve in a Paradise of delights, followed by their fall and their punishment. From that point, the Bible, and the interpreters of the Bible in posterior years, have seen human life under this shadow of sin, guilt, pain and death.