Jesus Ate Fish (or, What I Should Have Said on the Radio!)

This past weekend, I was a guest on the Apologetics.com Radio Show here in Los Angeles (along with host Lindsay Brooks, staff apologist Sam Welbaum, and fellow guest Douglas Hamp). We were discussing the issue of Creationism (you can hear the whole show here). As I reviewed the show yesterday, I realized that one point Lindsay Brooks made was never really addressed, or at least, not in the best way possible. When speaking of whether or not there was animal death before the Fall, Lindsay made the point: if death is sinful, then why did Jesus eat fish? In other words, we know that Jesus never sinned, but young earth folks say that death is a result of sin, and therefore if Jesus contributed to the death of an animal, such as a fish, by eating it, He was sinning, and young earth folks have a problem. (Lindsay, who I'm sure will read this is free to correct any misrepresentations of his argument, but I believe it was made in the second half-hour of the show).

What should have been said in reply to this was: Death is not sinful, but it is part of the Curse. Sin is defined as a lack of conformity to or transgression of God's Law; whereas, the results of the Curse are death, thorns, pain in childbirth, working by the sweat of your brow, etc. The Curse is not sin, it is the result of sin. Animal death, then, is not sin, and eating fish was not/is not sinful, but it is a part of the Curse. Just as Jesus sweated (Luke 22:44), and just as Jesus felt the pain of thorns (Matt. 27:29), so He also ate dead animals (Mark 14:18 and Luke 21:41-43, for example). None of these things were sin, but they were all things which humanity is subject to as a result of the Curse--a result of Adam's sin.

That's what I should have said on the show, but hindsight is 20/20. Thank you again to Lindsay Brooks for helping this Iron to be a bit sharper!