Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 19:00:09 GMT
Here's an interesting passage in Matthew:
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” Matt 26:50-54 NIV
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” Matt 26:50-54 NIV
So when Jesus says he could call on the Father to send angels to save him, does that mean he literally could have done so and events would have played out differently (and Scripture not be fulfilled)? Or is he merely saying he theoretically has the power to do so but he could not actually do it as that is not how the future is set out?
To be fair I am not seeing the difference in your two stances, he could have done it and events would have played out differently, but he decided not to so because the fulfillment of scripture was more important to him. I guess you could say that he was therefore always locked into not doing it as he was designed (for lack of a better word ) to fulfill scripture and so would never have done it.