Who is worse, humans or frogs?
It’s a popular storyline--a princess kisses a frog that is magically transformed into a prince. The obvious moral of the story is that handsome princes are better than frogs. But advancements in understanding of the human heart have cast doubt on this conventional wisdom. It may be that people, even handsome princes, are actually worse off than frogs.
John Piper, skeptical of his fellow humans, says, “I have heard it said, ‘God didn’t die for frogs. So he was responding to our value as humans.’ This turns grace on its head. We are worse off than frogs. They have not sinned. They have not rebelled and treated God with the contempt of being inconsequential in their lives. God did not have to die for frogs. They aren’t bad enough. We are. Our debt is so great, only a divine sacrifice could pay it.”
Although no frog was interviewed for this story, it is widely believed that the majority of frogs agree with Piper’s view. There is also no known instance of any frog having sinned, although the absence of a positive example is not by itself conclusive. (Even though one of my sisters believes frogs are bad simply because they are frogs. To her, the worst plague God brought to Egypt prior to the Exodus was the frog infestation.)
In the end, there seems to be plenty of scriptural support for Piper’s belief that humans are worse off than frogs, including Romans 5:7-8: “One will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die--but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”