Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 3
Dean asks, “Is it important that Jesus Christ came in the flesh?” and ties the incarnation to Jesus “living out the life of the kingdom… as one of us” and giving “a guarantee to be able to live that life.” How does that argument challenge common evangelical instincts about grace, obedience, and the purpose of Jesus’ earthly life?
Another way to ask: Why does it matter that Jesus came “in the flesh” and lived the kingdom life as one of us? How does that push back on common evangelical ideas about grace, obedience, and why Jesus lived on earth?

Direct Answer Dean’s argument pushes against a view of grace that mainly means “Jesus died so I can live as I like,” and instead ties grace to Jesus’ embodied example and enabling power for obedience—his flesh-and-blood life shows the kingdom can be lived “as one of us,” and his coming gives a “guarantee” that this life is possible.

Support from Transcript:

  • Dean asks directly: “Is it important that Jesus Christ came in the flesh?… Why is it important?”
  • Answer affirmed in class: “In the flesh, he lived out the life of the kingdom… He gave us a guarantee to be able to live that life.”
  • Dean reinforces: “He showed us that that kingdom life could be lived out as one of us.”
  • He calls the incarnation “one of the most precious teachings… to show us an example, and to die for us.”
  • He links incarnation and atonement: “When he takes upon our human flesh and then he dies for us… makes that salvation possible.”
  • Earlier Tolstoy quote mocks a version of grace that permits unchanged living; Dean’s incarnation emphasis counters that.
Discussion Follow-ups If Jesus’ earthly life is a “kingdom guarantee,” what should change in how we preach discipleship? Do we treat obedience as optional proof-texting, or as the intended fruit of salvation?