I first heard the question, “Could Jesus have sinned?” in the early 1990s. The leadership of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) was making the point that Jesus was never tempted to sin, but rather was tested.
According to the popular usage of these words, they were absolutely right. Jesus did not endure temptation in the sense of resisting a strong urge to sin and only succeeding by the skin of his teeth.
But the old guard of COG doctrine vociferously objected. The voices that eventually caught my ear — like those of Garner Ted Armstrong and CGI pastors Bill Watson and Wayne Hendrix — would quote Hebrews 4:15, saying Jesus “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (KJV).
And so they insisted, “If Jesus could not have sinned, then you have no Savior!“
They believed as many COGers still do today — that Jesus' mission was the riskiest venture of all time. He might have sinned and all would have been lost forever, including God the Son himself! The stakes were high, but thankfully Jesus won the challenge.
At first I was sympathetic toward WCG's new position — that Jesus was “tested” but not “tempted.” It seemed to make sense. Yet, influenced by my associations, I eventually accepted the old view — that Jesus could have sinned, but didn't.
Now, I realize that this “old school” COG crowd was wrong — dreadfully wrong — because they didn't understand at least two things:
First, the fundamental Christian doctrine of who and what Jesus is — that Jesus is at once both fully God and fully man.
And second, how sin is committed.
The Real Jesus
We cannot correctly answer the question of whether Jesus could have sinned if we wrongly believe (as many within COGs seem to) that Jesus
- was God in the beginning
- stopped being God during his earthly life, and
- became God again at his Resurrection.
If God is eternal (no beginning and no end), then he cannot stop being God. That's what it means to be “eternal.” He can't be “eternal until he stops being eternal” — a contradiction of terms.
The Word (who became Jesus — John 1:1,14) always was, and always will be, God. But when he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, he took for himself an additional nature — a human nature. (By “human nature,” we don't mean in this context a proclivity to sin, but all the qualities that make us a member of the Homo sapiens family: body and spirit.)
Since his divine nature (that which makes him God) is eternal, then he can't stop being divine. Taking on an additional nature — a human nature with all that entails — does not change that. And so Jesus is often called the “God-Man,” which is a way of saying he is at once both God and man.
“But that doesn't add up!”
I've heard the objection that the math is all wrong if we say Jesus is fully God and fully man. If something is 100 percent one thing, then there's no room for it to be 100 percent something else, too. It doesn't add up — nothing can total 200 percent.
But there is no mathematical contradiction if we understand the difference between who someone is and what someone is.
What I am is distinct from who I am. The what of me is possessed by the who of me, not the other way around. (That's why I can speak of “my arm,” but not “an arm's me.”)
We have to realize that the Person of Jesus (who he is) is always and only divine. It's not 50-50 — he's not part divine Person, part human person. He is a divine Person, without qualification, 100 percent.
But the nature of Jesus (what he is) is twofold. He has a divine nature, and he has a human nature.
How sinning is done
I said earlier that the old guard of COG doctrine was wrong about Jesus being capable of sin because they didn't understand that Jesus is fully God and fully man. Now that we understand Jesus is one divine Person with two natures (human and divine), let's flesh that out.
How do we sin? Are we sinful merely because we have material bodies, with flesh and blood and bone? Or did God consider everything he had made in the Garden and say “it was very good” (Genesis 1:30)?
Think about the animals. With all its flesh — weighing tons — never has any elephant been guilty of sin. By instinct, an elephant can exhibit aggressive behavior, and does not live a monogamous mating lifestyle. But in no way can it be held morally culpable or even capable of “sin.”
Why? Because it's not what something is that sins. Sin is not committed by natures, but by persons! Elephants are not persons as we are, for we have rational, spiritual souls (think “spirit in man”).
And then there's Satan and his demons. They are incorporeal as pure spirits. (Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that they have “spirit bodies,” they still don't have human flesh.) Yet they have committed the gravest sins!
So how does this apply to Jesus?
The fact that Jesus has a human nature does not mean he is capable of sin. Remember, while he has a human nature to go along with his divine nature, he is only one Person. A divine Person!
Natures on their own cannot sin. My body cannot sin without being directed by me, because only persons can sin. And since Jesus is a divine Person, it follows that Jesus cannot and never could sin.
The temptations of Jesus
Because the Eternal Word took to himself a human nature, he shares in our experiences and our sufferings.
He lived his earthly life in the flesh just like we do. He endured hunger. He bled. He cried. He suffered all the things we do.
But he never teetered on the edge of sin. There were no close calls.
Read Matthew 4. Even during the full-on assault in the wilderness by Satan the master tempter, Jesus did not hesitate in perfect obedience to the Father.
Jesus fasted 40 days and 40 nights, and was hungry. He could only be hungry through his human nature, which he shares with us. Yet when the great tempter tried to lead him astray, Jesus had no second thoughts:
But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God’” (verse 4).
His truly hungry human body was not his boss; he, the divine Person, was wholly in control.
His inability to sin is evident in the next temptation, when the devil told him to jump from atop the temple, since the Scriptures said he would be protected.
Jesus' did not have to battle pride. He did not think, “Hey, who the heck do you think I am? I am the I AM, buddy! I'll show you!”
No, with absolute, unwavering conviction, Jesus said,
Again it is written, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test” (verse 7).
And finally, the devil tempted Jesus with all the kingdoms of the world if only Jesus would fall down and worship him.
We can't take the fact that the devil tried to lead Jesus into sin as proof that Jesus was capable of having second thoughts.
No, the all-knowing God-Man was not impressed.
Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’ Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.
Again, we see because of who he was (God), Jesus was unshakable; but because of what he was (Man), he suffered intensely.
In other words, while Jesus was tempted in the sense of being put to the test in his human weaknesses, he was not tempted in the sense of struggling to decide whether to sin.
He was never close to sinning through anger. He was never in danger of lusting for power, riches, or women.
Contrary to what I heard years ago, if Jesus could have sinned, then he is not God, and you have no Savior!
Conclusion: It makes perfect sense to think of it this way — that Jesus was tested, but not tempted.
So then, since we have a great High Priest who has entered heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we believe. This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin. So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most (Hebrews 4:14-16, New Living Translation).
The COG Catholic currently blogs at www.cogcatholic.org.
34 comments:
Its partly the use of language isn't it, and asking the right question.
Could God sin? Well God could do anything couldn't He? So you might say the answer to that question is Yes, He could - if He willed it.
But the question should be, Would God sin? And the answer to that is No, He wouldn't. Because it is not in His nature to contemplate sinning, because God is perfection.
But we can see that spirit beings have the capacity to sin, if they will it.
Satan was perfect for who knows how long, as were the other angels. Could they sin? Well, Satan proved that they could. Would they sin? The majority of the angels proved that they would not.
This explanation communicates well but it may not be the actual explanation of what took place when Jesus became incarnate. I do not understand the existential nature of the Three-personed God. We label ideas without really understanding their substantive nature. Perichoresis is an example. Although it is much written about, nobody understands how the Three Persons actually relate to each other. We do not understand the essential data but we can deal with the metadata. We know they are intimately connected with each other without knowing how to precisely define the words “intimately connected” as it applies to the absolute God.
For that reason, what you may have constructed for us is a particularly meaningful metaphor. It may be much better than other metaphors without ever leaving the category of metaphor. I like the metaphor but it is not based on the essentials of Kenosis. Because we do not know how Kenosis happened and to what extent.
I do not believe Jesus could sin because he is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the Cosmos. John the Baptist, before Jesus began his ministry and underwent crucifixion, stated that he was the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the Cosmos. It was a done deal. Yahweh knows the future and is in control of it. Yet, Armstrongists do not believe he knows the future. They believe that God does not know what you are going to do tomorrow. At the same time, they are ardent believers in predictive prophecy. There is a paradox here.
The fact that Armstrongists do not believe that God is the creator and controller of time and the events that occur in it coincides nicely with their belief that Jesus did not know whether was going to succeed in his mission. Like Frodo, he was a struggling human and anything might happen. Scripture says otherwise.
Scout
This is a well-articulated post and a very interesting topic.
Perichoresis- now that's a fifty-cent word if I ever heard one!
Googling the topic, all results so far assert that Christ could sin, as in the following: "Scripture is clear that Jesus, the sinless Son of God, was tempted to sin (Matthew 4:1–11; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2; 22:28; Hebrews 2:18)."
There is an old joke from
the '70s which perhaps God had heard or may have even inspired. And, I think it relates to many of the deep precepts in the Bible.
Pete: "Hey, buddy, do you know the difference between a guy who has seen Niagara Falls, a guy who has not seen Niagara Falls, and a hamburger?"
Jake: "What????"
Pete: "The guy who has seen Niagara Falls has seen the mist! The guy who has not seen Niagara Falls has missed the scene!"
Jake: "Uh, what about the hamburger?"
Pete: "Oh, that's for you to chew on for a while!"
It's pretty much a given that when God inspired the Bible, He intended for it to make us think, to ponder the precepts contained therein, and to find ever deepening personalized meanings. I like posts like this which probe those depths. That is so much better than know it all Armstrongite ministers dictating how we must think!
Eh, Jesus gave up His divinity when He became a human being. Yes He could have sinned. Yes He died. He was as dead as any human that ever lived and died. If He did not die then we are all doomed because the penalty has not been paid.
This Catholic immortal soul nonsense has spread to all of the "churches" in the world, along with other heresies that Rome has adopted.
The Church of God will never endorse such it.
"I do not understand the existential nature of the Three-personed God."
Because it is not understandable. It is Roman Catholic confusion. God is not a trinity.
I do find it slightly odd that we are discussing if it is possible for God, Jesus, to sin, and are coming to the conclusion that no, it could not happen, while at the same time many on this blog consider that as humans God doesn't expect us to bother attempting not to sin, to strive to keep God's laws of love, because Jesus has done it all for us.
About as big an oxymoron that its possible to get!
''..consider that as humans God doesn't expect us to bother attempting not to sin, ..''
this is a misrepresentation in my view of what I've read here so I can only assume you choose to be mischievous .Nor does it accord with Paul who identified a inherent and indwelling sin in the flesh itself. No alleged law keeping solves this - it is only through being sanctified and justified through Jesus and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit do we have hope. Asking for fruits of the Holy Spirit.
One of several issues where Dr. Stavrinides left WCG members scratching their heads in 1990s Bible studies. "The Great Gamble Theory" went deeply into this "could he/would he" topic.
Plural:
This subject may attract ultracrepidarians.
Re "homo sapiens"
At the core of homo sapiens is unwisdom (ie, madness) and so the human label of "wise" (ie, sapiens) is a complete collective self-delusion --- study the free scholarly essay “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room" ... www.CovidTruthBeKnown.com (or https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html)
“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic.” --- Dresden James
Once you understand that humans are "invisibly" insane (pink elephant people, see cited essay) you'll UNDERSTAND (well, perhaps) why they, especially their alleged experts, perpetually come up with myths and lies about everything ... including about themselves (their nature, their intelligence, their origins, their "supreme" status, etc).
"All experts serve the state and the media and only in that way do they achieve their status. Every expert follows his master, for all former possibilities for independence have been gradually reduced to nil by present society’s mode of organization. The most useful expert, of course, is the one who can lie. With their different motives, those who need experts are falsifiers and fools. Whenever individuals lose the capacity to see things for themselves, the expert is there to offer an absolute reassurance." —Guy Debord
“Repeating what others say and think is not being awake. Humans have been sold many lies...God, Jesus, Democracy, Money, Education, etc. If you haven't explored your beliefs about life, then you are not awake.” --- E.J. Doyle, songwriter
Isn’t it about time for anyone to wake up to the ULTIMATE DEPTH of the human rabbit hole — rather than remain blissfully willfully ignorant in a narcissistic fantasy land and play victim like a little child?
The official narrative is… “trust official science” and "trust the authorities" but as with these and all other "official narratives" they want you to trust and believe …
“We’ll know our Disinformation Program is complete when everything the American public [and global public] believes is false.” —William Casey, a former CIA director=a leading psychopathic criminal of the genocidal US regime
"Separate what you know from what you THINK you know." --- Unknown
Ava, did you used to be a radical hippie or something?
“And the Word was made flesh”
This statement in 1 John has been understood by Armstrongists to mean that everything about the pre-existent Logos was made flesh in the incarnation. Jesus was not of a dual nature in his years on the earth but was of a singular human nature. It is difficult to use the miraculous powers of Jesus to oppose this idea. One might always argue that Jesus was an agent through whom God the Father worked and God the Father provided all the miraculous powers. For example, Jesus knew the thoughts of other people (telepathy) but, perhaps, God provided this information to Jesus in some way and Jesus did not inherently possess the capability telepathy. So, we cannot make the argument that the incarnate Jesus was inherently divine because he had miraculous capabilities.
We know that Jesus emptied himself (Kenosis) but we do not know to what extent. Did he retain some divine powers? We are not privy to this and scripture is vague about this. While we have no detailed statement about this in scripture, we do have statements that provide us with logical deduction. Jesus said “I and the Father are one.” Since God the Father is fully divine, if the incarnate Jesus were fully flesh, as Armstrongism asserts, there is no way that this statement could be true at the level of pneuma, psuche or soma. Jesus retained his perichoretic relationship with God the Father and the Holy Spirit and this would require him to be divine even though incarnate. This leads to the conclusion that if Jesus did not retain his divine powers in his incarnate state, he did not wholly divest himself of them but, rather, temporarily discontinued their use.
My theory regarding his sinless state is that this is a direct consequence of his retaining his divine status. For a perfect being, action is always a perfect reflection of will. We humans are not that way. We may will to not sin but because of weakness our actions can be otherwise. But Yahweh said, “I am that I am.” This supports the idea that God wills what he is and his action is always in conformance with his will. He is not going to will one thing then do something else. The actions of Jesus perfectly conformed to his will because he retained his divine nature.
The Incarnation is non-trivial. It is not encompassed by a five-minute speech at Spokesman Club.
Scout
3:06 ''Because it is not understandable. It is Roman Catholic confusion ...'
anyone who pretends they do understand God whether one or two or three or more is I suspect massively deceiving themselves or arrogant
ps reason why I included ''..three or more '' in my comment before is that cog groups seem to teach that upon the resurrection God expands from two to literally billions. Humans become God they say.
(Yet at the same time they are most concerned many believers - not only Catholics - believe there are good grounds in scriptures showing that the Holy Spirit is a person, and part of God. Entire books are written about it.
So far as I know Adventists who are fellow Sabbatarians of course accept this view of the three fold nature. Witnesses on the other hand demote Jesus to an angel and like cog don't see the Holy Spirit as a person and God.)
Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ was revealed in a human body...........1 Timothy 3:16 NLT
Blasphemous post NO2HWA.
If yhwh had become just a human at this point (which isn’t a biblical point of view); how does a human sacrifice fulfill the requirement for all humans?
God was in Jesus reconciling the world to Himself.
Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God.
In Him all the fullness of God dwelled.
He had the Holy Spirit without limit.
He laid down His own life and took it up again. (What a bold human he was)
He claimed if you’ve seen Him, you’ve seen the Father.
No one is saying He wasn’t in human form. He was. It’s a mystery. He is the Plan of God. Your choice, believe it or not.
" One might always argue that Jesus was an agent through whom God the Father worked and God the Father provided all the miraculous powers."
Well, that IS what Jesus said, isn't it? Jesus did say that He could do nothing of Himself, right?
"anyone who pretends they do understand God whether one or two or three or more is I suspect massively deceiving themselves or arrogant "
Or, they have the Spirit of God in them.......
Anonymous 5:41 wrote, "Well, that IS what Jesus said, isn't it? Jesus did say that He could do nothing of Himself, right?"
If you look at the context of that statement, it seems to be referring to authority and credentialing rather than miraculous capabililties. But I think you may be right. Jesus may have been utterly contingent. But I am not ready to plant a flag on a concept, yet.
Scout
Anonymous 5:43 wrote, "Or, they have the Spirit of God in them......."
The idea that limited, created beings would ever understand an absolute God is inconceivable. I have encountered Armstrongists who believe that they do understand God because after all he is just a kind of superhuman - just like us but more so. They believe that if you cannot understand God, religion is worthless. That is one of the many Armstrongist binaries. Either you understand God or you don't. The bit is either 1 or 0.
I believe that God has given us not a full understanding of himself but a workable understanding of himself. He is intelligible to us because we are made in his image. But our understanding of him is not exhaustive. It is superficial but workable. I think we will forever learn more about God without remotely coming to a full understanding. In a real way, understanding him fully implies mastering all he knows. We will never have the chops.
Scout
True that, Scout! HWA's "God as God is" reward doctrine has been applied inversely in such a way as to anthropomorphically create that Armstrongian concept of God. Superhuman just does not catch the depth and reality. Instead, it puts God into their own little easily managed box. Members are not encouraged to think beyond that box, a fact which also limits their personal growth. Their fixed concept becomes another control factor.
(Got my connection issue fixed.)
Spend less time worrying about whether Jesus could sin, and more time worrying about whether Jesus DID sin. The abrogationist view has Jesus (or his apostles) sinning by nullifying the Law (Deut 4:1-2). This would disprove Jesus’ claim to be from the God of their scriptures (Deut 12:32-13:5 — be sure to read that entire section). The terms of behavior in his supposed “New Covenant” are prophesied to be precisely the same for them (Deut 30:6–“circumcise your hearts,” leading to verse 8–“obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today”). Jesus could not depart from that, or he would’ve failed to fulfill the prophecies. And since the apostles cannot depart from Jesus, neither could they depart from the Law.
If Jesus did so depart from the Law, then he indeed sinned as one under the law (cf Gal 4:4), and the whole discussion is moot. If his apostles – all of whom were Jews, and thus indisputably subject to their eternal national covenant with God (Ps 105:8) – did so later, then the traditional Christian message, including the Gospel accounts telling the story of Jesus’ life, is heavily gutted and deprived of a great deal of credibility.
When, according to the biblical record, God talked to Moses, God set out on a rather narrow course. Not just for the Israelites, but for Himself. He told so much of what he committed to doing, and even restrained the Messiah he promised to send (again, Deut 12:32-13:5 – don’t forget the chapter 13 part). If the Christian ideology departs from that course, then it is false.
Many of you know that I do not believe the Christian course. But if you yourself do, then you have to read its text to conform with itself – that is, that which Moses laid out (still again, Deut 12:32-13:5).
Here are Jesus’ own words to critics: “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:45-47)
If you disregard Moses, you can’t believe in Jesus. You have no choice. And no amount of NT bloviating can change that.
LTW,
You don't get to dictate how God, Jesus Christ, or Christians influenced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit interpret the Hebrew Scriptures or Greek New Testament - especially in light of the fact, that you reject those writings! Moreover, your characterization of our views as disregarding Moses or abrogating God's Laws is inaccurate, and no amount of bloviating from you can make it so!
You make the mistake of making Christ conform to the Hebrew Scriptures instead of making them conform to him. As I noted before, this is precisely why the Jew's reject the claim of Jesus and his disciples that he was the promised Messiah. So, you go right on quoting from the twelfth and thirteenth chapters of Deuteronomy. We don't accept your interpretation of that passage, and we don't accept the claims which you have put forward about it refuting the Christian message about Christ or the Law. My thesis does NOT disregard Moses or Torah, and I do believe in Jesus of Nazareth, and that is MY choice!
And you just go on denying the prophecy that destroys your case. Any honest and reasonably conscious person, and see you through your denial of exactly what you’re doing.
Oh well. God knows what you know. And people here have to choose for themselves. You all have seen the Deuteronomy passages. It’s all on your own heads.
Miller,
LTW has adopted the Judaic position. He recognizes the Law of Moses, he believes Jesus is a false prophet, and he does not give any credence to the New Testament. There are many people who hold this same view and they are practicing Jews. If there were an elegant proof that relies on human logic or prooftext that Judaism has been replaced by Christianity, Jews everywhere would be convinced. But there is no such elegant proof and Judaism still has many followers.
From the Christian perspective, LTW is non-elect. He is someone that has never had his mind opened to Christianity – again, like many of the Jews of Jesus’ day. “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.” A simple statement but one of the most profound ironies of history.
I do not mean to derogate LTW by saying he is non-elect. But this is the Christian view. He simply is not going to understand Christianity. And his view of us is that we believe in a false religion. Peter and Paul must have met many people who fall into the category – opponents of Christianity. I do not know what he does for praxis but he would fit well ideologically into and Orthodox Jewish setting. But I would guess he is not a Jew by religion.
Scout
LTW, Sunday, August 11, 2024 at 7:18:02 AM PDT, wrote:
"...When, according to the biblical record, God talked to Moses, God set out on a rather narrow course. Not just for the Israelites, but for Himself. He told so much of what he committed to doing, and even restrained the Messiah he promised to send (again, Deut 12:32-13:5 – don’t forget the chapter 13 part). If the Christian ideology departs from that course, then it is false.
Many of you know that I do not believe the Christian course. But if you yourself do, then you have to read its text to conform with itself – that is, that which Moses laid out (still again, Deut 12:32-13:5).
Here are Jesus’ own words to critics: “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:45-47)
If you disregard Moses, you can’t believe in Jesus. You have no choice. And no amount of NT bloviating can change that..."
******
But could Jesus have sinned?
And then there are Isaiah's words, which should also not be disregarded:
Isaiah 42:1 "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."
He shall not fail, and Jesus did not fail...or sin.
And time will tell...
John
Scout,
I agree with your comment. LTW presents here as more of a Deist who employs a Jewish perspective to dismiss the New Testament while simultaneously insisting that Christians must observe Torah to be consistent. His position is a mass of contradictions. He is like those Fundamentalist Atheists who insist that Scripture is an all or nothing phenomenon - that it must be inerrant to have any validity. Also, like Dennis, he insists that a passage of Scripture must be interpreted within the parameters of what the original human author meant to say. In other words, there is no recognition that God might have had something else in mind when he inspired a particular passage to be written, or that the Holy Spirit could play any role in understanding/interpreting a passage. "This is the only valid conclusion that you can come to"!
It looks like the issue is: magnifying the law......vs.....adding to the law?
It's not just the old WCG, but the best theologians, past and present, have been divided on this question on whether Jesus could have sinned. Both sides make excellent points.
On the one hand, we have Jesus being uniquely God and Man, a product of a Virgin birth, having the holy spirit without measure from birth, having no real cause to ever having a desire to sin.
Then we have R.C. Sproul, who says "I think it is wrong to believe that Christ's divine nature made it impossible for his human nature to sin. If that were the case, the temptations, the tests, and his assuming the responsibility of the first Adam would all have been charades".
If there were no risks or potential failure, then was all this just one big dog and pony show that had no meaning?
Also, we are told in Revelation 3:21 that Christ OVERCAME SOMETHING, and we are to imitate that example:
" to him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne, EVEN AS I ALSO OVERCAME and am set down with my Father in His throne ".
All good points, but like Scout, I'm not ready to plant a flag on either concept yet.
BP8 wrote, “If there were no risks or potential failure, then was all this just one big dog and pony show that had no meaning?”
It was not a dog and pony show. It was a real-world happening. But it may not be the happening you are thinking of. I believe that there was no risk that Jesus would fail in his mission. Just like, by way of metaphor, Tolkien made sure that Frodo would not fail. But Jesus did experience the full range of experiences associated with his being a human undergoing affliction. And by his suffering he learned obedience. All those things he suffered were taken directly out of his hide.
Scout
Post a Comment