Ransom

[Xeno.of.athens]

Lev 17:11 - For the life of the creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar.

Doesn't the verse relate to old testament sacrifices?

Atonement is payment.

Is it?

"atonement" refers to the reconciliation between God and humanity that was accomplished through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the process by which the broken relationship caused by sin is repaired. This concept is rooted in the belief that Jesus, as the Son of God, took upon himself the sins of the world and offered himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and manifest divine mercy. Christians believe that through Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection, the debt of sin is paid, and humanity is offered the opportunity for salvation and eternal life. Atonement is closely tied to the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and Reconciliation, which are means of receiving grace and participating in the redemptive work of Christ.

There was no sacrifice for rebellious (apostasy) disobedience in the OT, as there is no salvation for apostasy in the NT.

You think apostasy is an unforgivable sin?

 

[Clare73]

How can a ransom be paid to an attribute?

Why can't the ransom be paid to Satan...ransoms are always paid to the bad guy...Satan caused the problem and is called the "god of this world (II Cor. 4:4). Satan is also called the “prince of the power of the air” in Ephesians 2:2. He is the “ruler of this world” in John 12:31. These titles and many more signify Satan’s capabilities. He wields a certain amount of authority and power in this world. He is not a king, but a prince, a ruler of some sort. In some way he rules over the world and the people in it: “The whole world is under the control of the evil one” (1 John 5:19). And I certainly don't believe Satan got paid off!

Years ago, I read an in depth article on this subject matter....and came to the conclusion too many human analogies clog up this most complex aspect of the Atonement. All three passages of Scripture which mention "ransom" do not say who the ransom is paid to...(Mark 10:45, I Ti. 2:6, Hebrews 9:15). I just teach our lay people (when I have the chance) "Jesus paid the price" and go on with life.

Don't need to. . .it's paid to whatever binds the offense; i.e., justice.

 

[Clare73]

Doesn't the verse relate to old testament sacrifices?

It relates to sacrifices authorized by God, as was Jesus' sacrifice (Mt 20:28), of which the OT sacrifices were the pattern/type.

Is it?

Look up the meaning of "atonement."

"atonement" refers to the reconciliation between God and humanity that was accomplished through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the process by which the broken relationship caused by sin is repaired. This concept is rooted in the belief that Jesus, as the Son of God, took upon himself the sins of the world and offered himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and manifest divine mercy. Christians believe that through Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection, the debt of sin is paid, and humanity is offered the opportunity for salvation and eternal life. Atonement is closely tied to the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and Reconciliation, which are means of receiving grace and participating in the redemptive work of Christ.
You think apostasy is an unforgivable sin?

Unforgiveable in that if I die in it, I am condemned.

The same is not true of other sin.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Don't need to. . .it's paid to whatever binds the offense; i.e., justice.

I love to live with a little bit of mystery in Scripture...I don't have to have everything ticked and tied.

 

[Clare73]

I love to live with a little bit of mystery in Scripture...I don't have to have everything ticked and tied.

I love the omnipotent power within God's truth and ways.

 

[bling]

Lev 17:11 - For the life of the creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar.

I had forgotten about this verse, so thank you for bringing it to my attention:

First: it is the life of the creature which is in the blood and not our life or our payment.

Second: the blood is given to us for us to make atonement for ourselves, which fits excellently the ransom payment being made to us, for us to accept and thus have atonement for us (the child of God within every sinner). God does not want the blood outside Christ’s body, but I do.

Atonement is payment.

The atonement process includes the sacrifice, but the sacrifice itself is not the Atonement.

Penalty is payment.

No the “penalty” is the “punishment”, which can include the offender paying something.

There was no sacrifice for rebellious (apostasy) disobedience in the OT, as there is no salvation for apostasy in the NT.

Such unBiblical human rationale for the ordinances of God. . .

It is right from the scripture.

 

[Clare73]

I had forgotten about this verse, so thank you for bringing it to my attention:

First: it is the life of the creature which is in the blood

The principle being stated is that the offering of blood is the offering of life, which offering forgives (atones, pays for) the sin.

and not our life or our payment.

Atonement is payment.

 

[ViaCrucis]

He most definitely saved us from God's justice/wrath on our sin (Ro 5:9).

In the sense that each and every one of us is under wrath because of our sin; since God is good and holy. Jesus doesn't save us from God; but does make satisfaction of the Law by His obedience to the Law. There is a happy exchange, in which Christ shares in our death, that we might share in His life. By satisfying the Law and sharing in our death, the wrath--the just condemnation of our sin under the Law--is also satisfied.

When this stops being about the way in which God, hidden behind the veil of the Law, is terrifying; and in the Law all we can see is the dread and awful truth of our own blatant unrighteousness; and instead becomes this idea that there are two opposing forces in the Trinity: God the Father as an angry and vengeful God out to get us because He hates us and wants to see us destroyed; and God the Son as a benevolent shield and bulwark against the hate of God the Father everything immediately goes sideways to a place that is entirely in opposition to the Christian Gospel.

Wrath is not about a mean-spirited angry divine power lurking above wanting to destroy us. Wrath is what it looks like when sinners behold God hidden (Deus absconditus) behind the bare nudity (Deus nudus) of His righteousness in the Law. It's Adam and Eve in the Garden, suddenly aware that they are naked, and trying to hide their shame by putting fig leaves on. It's what happens when a dark place is exposed to sunlight, and creepy-crawlies all scatter in fear. But we know what and who God is, we know it through His Son, His Son made flesh and who suffered and died for us (Deus revelatus). Here is the Father's great and abundant love toward us sinners, Christ died for us. Wrath is to behold God hidden behind the Law, it is to see God without Christ, without faith. And all who seek to find God hidden, and without Christ, will always find they rightly deserve death and hell--because the Law is a mirror, and what it reflects back to us is ourselves in all of our ugliness.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The principle being stated is that the offering of blood is the offering of life, which offering forgives (atones, pays for) the sin.

Atonement is payment.

When talking about what we call atonement Scripture employs lots of ways of talking about it.

This is one of the problems with selecting a single atonment theory and rejecting everything else. Scripture does talk about payment, about Christ bearing punishment in our stead, the language of payment, satisfaction, and substitution, and legal language is all there. But so is the language of ransom, and healing, and restitution, and victory.

Atonement is a big word that covers a lot of ideas in Scripture. The Incarnation, the life and obedience of Jesus, His suffering and death, His resurrection, His ascension, His reign, and His coming again are all the stuff that is about our salvation, the salvation and healing of all creation, and the meaning and point of everything in the Bible from Genesis 1:1 onward. It's big stuff. And we can't merely reduce it to a singular theory or pithy theological sound bite.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bling]

The principle being stated is that the offering of blood is the offering of life, which offering forgives (atones, pays for) the sin.

Atonement is payment.

The atonement sacrifice is not the Atonement process, but part of the atonement process. Christ life, cruel torture, humiliation and murder is not Atonement, but the atonement sacrifice or ransom payment. Neither is atonement the payment or ransom.

 

[Clare73]

In the sense that each and every one of us is under wrath because of our sin; since God is good and holy. Jesus doesn't save us from God; but does make satisfaction of the Law by His obedience to the Law. There is a happy exchange, in which Christ shares in our death, that we might share in His life. By satisfying the Law and sharing in our death, the wrath--the just condemnation of our sin under the Law--is also satisfied.
When this stops being about the way in which God, hidden behind the veil of the Law, is terrifying; and in the Law all we can see is the dread and awful truth of our own blatant unrighteousness; and instead becomes this idea that there are two opposing forces in the Trinity: God the Father as an angry and vengeful God out to get us because He hates us and wants to see us destroyed; and God the Son as a benevolent shield and bulwark against the hate of God the Father everything immediately goes sideways to a place that is entirely in opposition to the Christian Gospel.

Wrath is not about a mean-spirited angry divine power lurking above wanting to destroy us.

Wrath is about the justice of God necessary on sin.

Look up the meaning of "wrath."

Wrath is what it looks like when sinners behold God hidden (Deus absconditus) behind the bare nudity (Deus nudus) of His righteousness in the Law. It's Adam and Eve in the Garden, suddenly aware that they are naked, and trying to hide their shame by putting fig leaves on. It's what happens when a dark place is exposed to sunlight, and creepy-crawlies all scatter in fear. But we know what and who God is, we know it through His Son, His Son made flesh and who suffered and died for us (Deus revelatus). Here is the Father's great and abundant love toward us sinners, Christ died for us. Wrath is to behold God hidden behind the Law, it is to see God without Christ, without faith. And all who seek to find God hidden, and without Christ, will always find they rightly deserve death and hell--because the Law is a mirror, and what it reflects back to us is ourselves in all of our ugliness.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

When talking about what we call atonement Scripture employs lots of ways of talking about it.

This is one of the problems with selecting a single atonment theory and rejecting everything else. Scripture does talk about payment, about Christ bearing punishment in our stead, the language of payment, satisfaction, and substitution, and legal language is all there. But so is the language of ransom,

All of which are about payment for sin that its debt may be cancelled (forgiven, an accounting term).

and healing, and restitution, and victory.

Which is the result of forgiveness.

Atonement is a big word that covers a lot of ideas in Scripture. The Incarnation, the life and obedience of Jesus, His suffering and death,

Atonement refers to the cross.

Everything else refers to the results of the cross.

His resurrection, His ascension, His reign, and His coming again are all the stuff that is about our salvation, the salvation and healing of all creation, and the meaning and point of everything in the Bible from Genesis 1:1 onward. It's big stuff. And we can't merely reduce it to a singular theory or pithy theological sound bite.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Wrath is about the justice of God necessary on sin.

Look up the meaning of "wrath."

This is a dumbed-down and flawed understanding of justice.

Justice is also forgiveness of sins. That is why St. Paul says that God's justice is revealed in the Gospel. This is not the justice by which God punishes sins, but the justice by which He justifies sinners.

I am well aware of what the word "wrath" means.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Atonement refers to the cross.

Everything else refers to the results of the cross.

The problem, here, is that the idea of atonement has never meant the cross to the exclusion of everything else. The cross is the crown jewel of the atonement, but Christians have always understood that the saving, redeeming, and reconciling work of God through Jesus is the entirety of who Jesus is and what Jesus has done.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

The atonement sacrifice is not the Atonement process, but part of the atonement process.

Scripture knows nothing of "the atonement process," an invention of man.

Christ life, cruel torture, humiliation and murder is not Atonement, but the atonement sacrifice or ransom payment. Neither is atonement the payment or ransom.

Biblical atonement is shedding of blood; i.e., death, sacrifice of life (Lev 17:11).

 

[ViaCrucis]

Which is the result of forgiveness.

Does it matter, at all, that Jesus was conceived and born? That He lived? Is the Gospel story just a bunch of filler until we get to Golgotha? Or does Golgotha fit within that larger stuff going on?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could have just written synopses of the Passion Narrative; but they didn't. The Passion Narrative is always the where the Gospel stories are heading, but everything before the Passion narrative, and everything following, including the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances and sayings--those matter to.

I'm not lessening the power of the cross (God forbid). But we can't pretend as though nothing else that Jesus says and does--who Jesus is, what Jesus is, the whole Incarnation itself--isn't itself relevant. God is doing something here. It all is heading toward the Cross and Empty Tomb; but it's not just filler, it means something. It says something. There is Salvation in this Jesus of Nazareth, in the Child as He lay in the manger, as He declares the kingdom of God, and rebukes demons.

Jesus, His whole Person, is what God is saying.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

Does it matter, at all, that Jesus was conceived and born? That He lived? Is the Gospel story just a bunch of filler until we get to Golgotha? Or does Golgotha fit within that larger stuff going on?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could have just written synopses of the Passion Narrative; but they didn't. The Passion Narrative is always the where the Gospel stories are heading, but everything before the Passion narrative, and everything following, including the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances and sayings--those matter to.
I'm not lessening the power of the cross (God forbid). But we can't pretend as though nothing else that Jesus says and does--who Jesus is, what Jesus is, the whole Incarnation itself--isn't itself relevant. God is doing something here. It all is heading toward the Cross and Empty Tomb; but it's not just filler, it means something. It says something. There is Salvation in this Jesus of Nazareth, in the Child as He lay in the manger, as He declares the kingdom of God, and rebukes demons.
Jesus, His whole Person, is what God is saying.

We are saved from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) on our sin by Jesus' atoning sacrifice and our faith therein (Ro 3:25).

Had Jesus not died as a sacrifice, there would be no redemption, no matter what else he did.

 

[d taylor]

That does not mean the "Blood" of the animal saved them.

-
​

Blood was never the means by which a person received God's free gift of Eternal Life. It has always been belief in Jesus, the Person who walked in the garden.

And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

 

[The Liturgist]

Both Social Trinitarianism and Tritheism are deeply anti Christian and must be taught at the lay level as very dangerous.

Indeed. The actual monophysites led by Eutyches, who was anathematized by Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria (although not in time to save Dioscorus from being deposed, albeit somewhat unjustly I think, at Chalcedon), degenerated into Tritheism in about a century of their formation, so that by the mid sixth century their leading intellectual was an Egyptian philosopher, John Philoponus, who was anathematized by both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox in Egypt for his adamant Tritheist views.

The reason for this degeneration is that by violating the Christological maxim of union of the divinity and humanity without change, confusion, separation or division, the Eutychian Monophysites instead insisted that the humanity of our Lord was dissolved into His divinity “like a drop of water into the ocean” which is blasphemous heresy, denying the humanity of our Lord as surely as the Gnostics, except despite the clear intention to avoid saying that our Lord was a hybrid of the divine and human, the implication remained that the ocean was somehow changed by the drop of humanity dissolved into it, to the point that the person of the Son became different from the persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit, which then in turn led directly to Tritheism.

The largest Tritheist cult in the world is actually that of the Mormons, who claim to profess a belief in the Trinity, but regard the Trinity as three distinct Gods who are not consubstantial or coeternal, or even coequal but rather represent the first tier in a celestial hierarchy that later Mormons will populate by themselves undergoing apotheosis.

 

[The Liturgist]

Had Jesus not died as a sacrifice, there would be no redemption, no matter what else he did.

We do not deny this statement, but the idea that there existed discord between the Father and the Son concerning our status is unacceptable as it presupposes a lack of concord between the divine wills of the three prosopa of the Holy and Undivided Trinity.

It turns the Holy and Undivided Trinity into a divided one, contradicts John 1 and John 10, and is, I would argue, an expression that can lead to people believing that Jesus Christ is a lesser entity than the Father, rather than a coequal person of the Trinity who is Himself fully God.

If you say Jesus Christ saved us from the wrath of God, you have literally said “God saved us from the wrath of God.” It reflects a misunderstanding of what the nature of the wrath of God is and a rejection of the statements in Scripture that God is Love.

The theology of the early Church is that divine wrath is the experience of the consuming fire of divine love by someone who rejects that love and sets themselves into opposition with God, and therefore they experience His love as a torment.

By dying on the Cross, Jesus Christ enabled us to, through faith in Him, be saved from the harm that our sin inflicts on us, because we are harmed by our sin, as the mentally ill person is harmed by a disease in their mind, we are harmed by a disorder of our actions that we inherit from Adam, a propensity to indulge ourselves; I quite like the Lutheran phrase Homo incurvatus in se as I see it as elegantly expressing the Eastern Orthodox view that sin results from our indulging the passions rather than seeking to restrain them.