Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 7
The speaker insists the resurrection was “the inevitable result of the life of a human… who chose to always honor his heavenly Father,” comparing death’s inability to hold Jesus to “oil… with water” and “your fingers… with a greased pig”; what do those illustrations suggest about the incompatibility between holiness and death, and do you find that compelling or troubling?
Another way to ask: What do the “oil and water” and “greased pig” pictures say about holiness and death not mixing? Do those comparisons convince you, or do they bother you?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The illustrations suggest death and Satan have no “grip” or rightful claim on a holy, obedient human life; they simply can’t “stick” to Jesus. The speaker intends this to be compelling: holiness is fundamentally incompatible with death’s dominion, so resurrection fits the moral texture of reality.
- He states the thesis: resurrection was “the inevitable result of the life of a human… who chose to always honor his heavenly Father.”
- He says Satan and death had “no more business with him than oil does with water or than your fingers do with a greased pig. It didn’t apply.”
- He frames it as “not overriding natural cause and effects,” but aligned with them.
- He links the incompatibility to obedience: Jesus “always do[es] those things that please” the Father; thus sin had no dominion.
- He connects dominion language to Romans 6: for Christ, “death hath no more dominion over him,” and likewise believers are told, “Let not sin therefore reign.”
- In Q&A he adds a legal angle: because Jesus “never sinned,” there was “no law” under which death could “rightfully” hold Him.