Was Jesus' sacrifice a ransom money paid to Satan?

Jesus was a ransom paid to God's justice to free us from its captivity.

Clare73 said:

Jesus was a ransom paid to God's justice to free us from its captivity.

Click to expand...

Is there any difference between saying that the ransom was paid to "God", verses being paid to "God's justice?"

KevinT said:

Is there any difference between saying that the ransom was paid to "God", verses being paid to "God's justice?"

Click to expand...

Justice is a matter of law, not of person, though persons do enforce that law.
When I am sentenced to prison for a crime, I pay my debt to the law/justice, not to a person.

Clare73 said:

Justice is a matter of law, not of person.

When I am sentenced to prison for a crime, I pay my debt to the law/justice, not to a person.

Click to expand...

I know that it is commonly said that when a bank robber, for example, serves a prison sentence, they might later say, "I've paid my debt to society." And from his point of view, I guess he would sure feel the pain of his imprisonment. And as a result, hopefully society can sleep better at night knowing that there is one less bank robber on the streets -- assuming the prison time has reformed the robber. But I feel that this saying of "paying a debt to society" is not actually a true statement. The robber is not actually paying anything. And society is not actually benefiting financially -- indeed they had to pay for his incarceration and reeducation.

So now considering Jesus paying a ransom. I think we would agree that Jesus is not actually paying anything to God. And God is not actually benefiting from Jesus's blood. And God Himself is the one that made the sacrifice (John 3:16).

Clare73 said:

Justice is a matter of law, not of person, though persons do enforce that law.
When I am sentenced to prison for a crime, I pay my debt to the law/justice, not to a person.

Click to expand...

Very good. This helps. I have always had difficulty with this. The text doesn't say if Jesus paid the ransom to Satan or to God. But many people interpret this as either being paid to Satan or to the Father exclusively.

I am wondering of this is closely related to the word "redemption." Nearly everybody in the Roman Empire knew the word "redemption" was related to the slave trade. If an individual were in severe debt, he could be brought to a Roman court and sold into slavery. It was assumed that his then his family, extended family, clan or tribe would buy him back from slavery with collective monies, along with paying off the debt. Both redemption and ransom are economic terms which pays the debt or injustice.

Paying and satisfying the debt/injustice bypassess satisfying the person.

tonychanyt said:

I don't think so. Let's check the original phraseology. Exodus 21:


The owner paid the victim's relative ransom money to redeem his life.

Strong's Hebrew: 3724. כֹּ֫פֶר (kopher) — 17 Occurrences

The word has two meanings, Brown-Driver-Briggs:

1. the price of a life, ransom
2. pitch

God commanded Noah in Genesis 6:


Strong's Hebrew: 3722. כָּפַר (kaphar) — 104 Occurrences

The noun H3724-kopher comes from the verb H3722-kaphar.

Brown-Driver-Briggs:

1. cover over, pacify, propitiate; ... Genesis 32:21 let me cover his face by the present (so that he does not see the offence, i.e. pacify, him

kopher could mean the material that makes a covering. This was the meaning applied to Jesus' sacrifice.

Mark 10:


The only other time G3883 appears is in 1 Timothy 2:


Was Jesus' sacrifice a ransom money paid to Satan?

I don't think so. I do not interpret H3724 or G3883 that way. Jesus was a ransom cover for us. The ransom blood continues to cover us. I do not see the ransom as a material transfer to Satan.

See also Jesus gave himself as a G3083-ransom for many people and G487-ransom for all people.

Click to expand...

My final synopsis of this passage is that a snake was inside the Son's Father's House (HEAVEN) that was shortly about to get driven out, just like a brood of vipers dwelled in the Son's Earthly Father's House (The Tabernacle) and they too would be shortly driven out.

The Father's true Tabernacle, THE SON, was snake free, though He did BECOME a CURSE to free us from the CURSE.

John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us—because it is written, Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed.

KevinT said:

I know that it is commonly said that when a bank robber, for example, serves a prison sentence, they might later say, "I've paid my debt to society." And from his point of view, I guess he would sure feel the pain of his imprisonment. And as a result, hopefully society can sleep better at night knowing that there is one less bank robber on the streets -- assuming the prison time has reformed the robber. But I feel that this saying of "paying a debt to society" is not actually a true statement. The robber is not actually paying anything. And society is not actually benefiting financially -- indeed they had to pay for his incarceration and reeducation.

Click to expand...

Agreed. . .the debt is paid to justice.

KevinT said:

So now considering Jesus paying a ransom. I think we would agree that Jesus is not actually paying anything to God. And God is not actually benefiting from Jesus's blood. And God Himself is the one that made the sacrifice (John 3:16).

Click to expand...

Jesus is paying our debt to God's justice (Ro 5:18).

Ain't Zwinglian said:

Very good. This helps. I have always had difficulty with this. The text doesn't say if Jesus paid the ransom to Satan or to God. But many people interpret this as either being paid to Satan or to the Father exclusively.

I am wondering of this is closely related to the word "redemption."

Click to expand...

Yes, to ransom from (Mt 20:28, Mk 10:45 ) is to redeem from (Tit 2:14, 1 Pe 1:18)--lutroo.

Ain't Zwinglian said:

Nearly everybody in the Roman Empire knew the word "redemption" was related to the slave trade. If an individual were in severe debt, he could be brought to a Roman court and sold into slavery.

Click to expand...

Jews could also sell themselves to Jews, and were to be treated as hired workers (Lev 25:39-40) and released after six years (Ex 21:2).

Ain't Zwinglian said:

It was assumed that his then his family, extended family, clan or tribe would buy him back from slavery with collective monies, along with paying off the debt. Both redemption and ransom are economic terms which pays the debt or injustice.

Paying and satisfying the debt/injustice bypassess satisfying the person.

Click to expand...

Jesus sacrifice of precious blood, which is of greater value than the blood of bulls, and goats, is far greater in comparison to money.

The ransom is payment.
Romans 3:24

being justified freely by His grace through the redemption [Literally, ransoming. (apolutrósis) a release effected by payment of ransom] that is in Christ Jesus,

Click to expand...

The ransom is payment to someone. Whom?
Psalm 49:7, 8

7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
8 It costs far too much to buy back your life. You can never pay God enough

Click to expand...

Please read 1 Timothy 2:5, 6, and Hebrews 9:15-28, which is too long to quote.
Basically, it says, a covenant is not inaugurated without blood, or does not take effect until the one who made it has died; it cannot be executed while he is still alive. Hebrews 9:17
For Christ did not enter a man-made copy of the true sanctuary, but He entered heaven itself, now to appear on our behalf in the presence of God. Hebrews 9:24
Nor did He enter heaven to offer Himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Hebrews 9:25
Otherwise, Christ would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Hebrews 9:26

Alive, Christ presented that sacrifice to God, as the high priest does. Leviticus 16:15
God accepts the payment of the ransom - the redemption price. Hebrews 9:12

he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

Agreed. . .the debt is paid to justice.

Jesus is paying our debt to God's justice (Ro 5:18).

Click to expand...

I'm thinking about God setting up a rational system, for comparative example, gravity. If I jump out of a plane without a parachute, God's system would cause me to crash into the ground and die. It's not vengeance -- it's just the way the system works. But if I am given a parachute, it would mediate the effect and I would be saved from the natural consequences. This would be an example of interacting with God's system of physical laws. Jesus could be seen in this example as the parachute perhaps (but perhaps it is a bad example).

But laws of justice can be (and are) also logical and consequential. When Cain killed Abel, everything about the event cries out for justice. Such things must not be allowed to just pass unchallenged. And anyone who has raised children know about how they all have a strong sense of what is and is not fair -- it seems to be built in. So God's laws of justice can be understood to be just as natural as physical laws.

If I think about Jesus paying a debt to justice (God's justice) in this light, perhaps I can accept it. Perhaps, but I still don't like it....

Here is why I react so negatively against the Penal Substitution view of salvation. I'll present a distorted characterization of it.

1. Tyrant Big Boss God thinks up an arbitrary rule. Let's say his subjects are not allowed to sit on the Special Chair.
2. Rebellious subject decides to sit on the Special Chair anyway.
3. Tyrant God say, "All right, I've had it. I told you my rule is that you can't sit on the Special Chair. Now you have stirred me up and I won't be satisfied until my sense of justice has been met. Someone's going to have to pay for this! I'm indignant with wrath!"
4. Mediator Son of God says, "Hey, Dad. Give them a break. Look, I spilled my blood. Remember the special system we set up whereby blood cancels out sin -- can't remember exactly how that works, but that's the deal we made. Anyway, don't be so angry."
5. Tyrant God, who really does like his Son, says, "All right, since you spilled your blood, I guess my drive for Justice can be satisfied." Rebellious subject, we're cool -- but just remember that it was my Son that bailed you out. And if you do it again, I guess He'll bail you out again.

Obviously this is NOT reality, but it is what goes through my mind whenever someone talks about how the blood of Jesus somehow cancels out sins, and corrects an injustice in the world. How does some plasma, some red blood cells, a few white blood cells, and some platelets do anything to change the fact that Cain killed Abel, or perhaps that I just threw a rock through my neighbor's window?

After Adam and Eve sinned, God brought them clothes made of skin -- skin from a dead animal. It must have made Adam and Even feel terrible that one of their loved creatures had to die to cover their nakedness. And they certainly would have thought quite a bit about the wrong they had done. God accepted Abel's offerings from the flock, so clearly He had set up the system of sacrifices at that time. Was God wanting animals to be killed because He was hungry? Because he liked the smell of burning flesh? Because He was angry and the death of the animals mollified Him? No! The purpose was to reach the hearts of man, and to help them realize that all the bad things they did caused bad consequences that God has to then set aright.

Over time, the system of sacrifices became so distorted that it was thought that the death of the animal someone "paid" for the wrong doing. And from that, people came to thing that "Justice" was somehow paid off.

But the entire paradigm has lost its meaning and had to be thrown out. An animal's death doesn't pay for a person's sins. As above, we can debate if there is a particular way one could frame the situation such that the death of Jesus "pays" for sins. But who does he pay this to? To the Devil? To God? To the system of Justice that God instituted? How does that work? What is Just about accepting blood in lieu of consequences?

It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems arbitrary and petty. I know Penal Substitution does make sense to others, and maybe with time I can understand better where they are coming from.

KT

KevinT said:

I'm thinking about God setting up a rational system, for comparative example, gravity. If I jump out of a plane without a parachute, God's system would cause me to crash into the ground and die. It's not vengeance -- it's just the way the system works. But if I am given a parachute, it would mediate the effect and I would be saved from the natural consequences. This would be an example of interacting with God's system of physical laws. Jesus could be seen in this example as the parachute perhaps (but perhaps it is a bad example).

Click to expand...

I think this is a nice example, if you are illustrating the Bible, as the parachute, because we need the Bible to help us "land safely" in a world that God has allowed hostility, and where we have been pushed off the plane (not pushed by God). Romans 8:18-25

Jesus' sacrifice can be likened to the rescue cargo, which God deployed, to collect all those who are in the process of falling, and who have already hit the rocks below... or the sea, or other land areas.
Once all are collected, Jesus returns them to the plane, where they will never be pushed out again, but will travel safely... forever.
That is, if one isn't foolish enough to jump.

KevinT said:

But laws of justice can be (and are) also logical and consequential. When Cain killed Abel, everything about the event cries out for justice. Such things must not be allowed to just pass unchallenged. And anyone who has raised children know about how they all have a strong sense of what is and is not fair -- it seems to be built in. So God's laws of justice can be understood to be just as natural as physical laws.

Click to expand...

That makes sense.

KevinT said:

If I think about Jesus paying a debt to justice (God's justice) in this light, perhaps I can accept it. Perhaps, but I still don't like it....

Click to expand...

Paying a debt to God's justice does not make sense to me, and I don't find any scriptural support for it.
Perhaps I may need to understand first, what it means, because sometimes we say the same thing with different expressions.

KevinT said:

Here is why I react so negatively against the Penal Substitution view of salvation. I'll present a distorted characterization of it.

1. Tyrant Big Boss God thinks up an arbitrary rule. Let's say his subjects are not allowed to sit on the Special Chair.
2. Rebellious subject decides to sit on the Special Chair anyway.
3. Tyrant God say, "All right, I've had it. I told you my rule is that you can't sit on the Special Chair. Now you have stirred me up and I won't be satisfied until my sense of justice has been met. Someone's going to have to pay for this! I'm indignant with wrath!"
4. Mediator Son of God says, "Hey, Dad. Give them a break. Look, I spilled my blood. Remember the special system we set up whereby blood cancels out sin -- can't remember exactly how that works, but that's the deal we made. Anyway, don't be so angry."
5. Tyrant God, who really does like his Son, says, "All right, since you spilled your blood, I guess my drive for Justice can be satisfied." Rebellious subject, we're cool -- but just remember that it was my Son that bailed you out. And if you do it again, I guess He'll bail you out again.

Click to expand...

That's interesting.

KevinT said:

Obviously this is NOT reality, but it is what goes through my mind whenever someone talks about how the blood of Jesus somehow cancels out sins, and corrects an injustice in the world. How does some plasma, some red blood cells, a few white blood cells, and some platelets do anything to change the fact that Cain killed Abel, or perhaps that I just threw a rock through my neighbor's window?

Click to expand...

Good question.

KevinT said:

After Adam and Eve sinned, God brought them clothes made of skin -- skin from a dead animal. It must have made Adam and Even feel terrible that one of their loved creatures had to die to cover their nakedness. And they certainly would have thought quite a bit about the wrong they had done. God accepted Abel's offerings from the flock, so clearly He had set up the system of sacrifices at that time. Was God wanting animals to be killed because He was hungry? Because he liked the smell of burning flesh? Because He was angry and the death of the animals mollified Him? No! The purpose was to reach the hearts of man, and to help them realize that all the bad things they did caused bad consequences that God has to then set aright.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting thought.
Help them realize how far they had fallen, I guess, is what you are saying.

Hebrews 9:22

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Click to expand...

Why does no forgiveness take place unless blood is shed?
Leviticus 17:11

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

Click to expand...

Deuteronomy 12:23

Only be sure not to eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat.

Click to expand...

Blood represents life.
The principle - we can say the law, like gravity - laid down by God is...
Life must to given for life taken. Genesis 9:26

When Adam sinned, did he kill anyone - Was life taken?
The payment of sin is death.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.

Jesus' blood covers the sins of all mankind. So, Jesus' blood was spilled (poured out) for the life (taken) of all mankind, and so that forgiveness can take place.
Matthew 26:28; Romans 3:25; Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7

KevinT said:

Over time, the system of sacrifices became so distorted that it was thought that the death of the animal someone "paid" for the wrong doing. And from that, people came to thing that "Justice" was somehow paid off.

Click to expand...

The Bible says at Romans 3:23-26

The sins of mankind was already paid for through the sacrifice propitiation (atonement) God put in place. 2 Corinthians 5:19

The Jews understood that their sins were pardoned when they offered sacrifices. Leviticus 16:20-22
It's true that some felt that doing so, gave them freedom to commit grave sins, but God told them otherwise. 1 Samuel 15:22, 23; Isaiah 1:11-15
However, the animal sacrifices served as a temporary provision, until the sacrifice of Christ actually took place. It allowed the Jews to see that they needed a savior. Galatians 3:19-25

KevinT said:

But the entire paradigm has lost its meaning and had to be thrown out. An animal's death doesn't pay for a person's sins. As above, we can debate if there is a particular way one could frame the situation such that the death of Jesus "pays" for sins. But who does he pay this to? To the Devil? To God? To the system of Justice that God instituted? How does that work? What is Just about accepting blood in lieu of consequences?

Click to expand...

I hope the above helps answer these questions for you.
God made the provision, so that he could reconcile mankind, or redeem mankind to himself.
It is the greatest gift God has given to mankind - one of high value. 1 Peter 1:18, 19
It sets mankind free, and without it, mankind remains in slavery to sin and corruption, and death for which their is no release.

Christ paid the high price of the ransom to God.
How does that work?
Deuteronomy 10:14

Behold, to Yahweh your God belongs heaven, the heaven of heavens, and the earth, with all that is therein.

Click to expand...

Do we give God anything? Yes. We give God everything that belongs to him.
Every provision of God, is his. Without God, there would be nothing to give.
The provision of the ransom was made by God, and it was paid to him.
His accepting the ransom price, allows mankind to be reconciled to God, and have the hope of eternal life, without sin, which we all inherited from Adam, our fore-parent.

KevinT said:

It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems arbitrary and petty. I know Penal Substitution does make sense to others, and maybe with time I can understand better where they are coming from.

KT

Click to expand...

I hope in time you do understand how Christ sacrifice benefits all those who put faith in it.
Have you prayed about it, and studied it with the help of those who teach others about it?

CoreyD said:

Blood represents life. The principle - we can say the law, like gravity - laid down by God is... Life must to given for life taken.

Click to expand...

Corey,

Thank you for taking the time to put together a thoughtful reply to my post. I appreciate it!

My secular education was heavily science based. And most things are taught in a way such that everything rests on underlying principles. A cannon ball travels through the air in a very particular way. Way? Well, because of momentum, initial conditions, gravity, and so on. And why do those things work the way they do? Well, because of conservation of energy, atomic structure, general relative, and so on. My point is that we learn that everything in God's creation is orderly, rational, consistent, and typically the result of underlying deeper principles.

So when you point out all the places in the Bible where it is stipulated that Blood = life, and sacrifices of blood cover sin etc, I can't help but believe that these are all high-level symbols that represent a deeper meaning. I learned an expression once that "analogies don't walk on all four legs," which is a weird saying, but means that analogies can only go so far when explaining a truth. Not all parts of the analogies will hold up when compared to what is actually the case. And likewise, I think the symbolism of blood (i.e. plasma, RBC's, WBC's etc) for life is good, but not 100% correlated to reality.

CoreyD said:

The payment of sin is death.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Click to expand...

Jesus spoke in thought-provoking parables. And this seems like a similar good one. It posits "sin" as an employer, and if you go work for this guy, you will get paid something at the end of the day. And the "wages" you will get are death.

CoreyD said:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.

Jesus' blood covers the sins of all mankind. So, Jesus' blood was spilled (poured out) for the life (taken) of all mankind, and so that forgiveness can take place.
Matthew 26:28; Romans 3:25; Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7

Click to expand...

Matthew 26 -- 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

One way of thinking about this is: Jesus's blood --> sins forgiven (don't worry about the how's and why's)

Another way of thinking about this is: Understanding that Adam & Eve's betrayal ceded control of Earth to Satan and that recovery of control requires trusting and following God's instructions completely -- even if to the point of death. Jesus, taught His disciples the example by willingly choosing death over distrust of God. And the disciples were thereby emboldened to accept flogging and yet say to the Jewish rulers "We must obey God rather than men" (Act 5:29). Sin may be considered a legal debt, but it should also be understood as a habitual propensity to do wrong. When a child scribbles on the wall with crayons, a mother can forgive the child and repaint the wall. But the ultimate goal is not forgiveness, but for the child to learn to stop the destructive behavior. The "forgiveness" given by the mother means that she takes care of the problem, as she goes to extra effort to compensate for the error. Jesus, by His death, does allow for "forgiveness" because He has taken care of the problem. He has regained a future for mankind rather than the complete extinction Satan desires. Jesus has regained control of Earth, He has shown us the way to overcome evil, and He has earned our love and respect.

The former method is the Penal Substitution theory of salvation, and what I am trying to describe in the second is more like the Moral Influence theory of salvation. I suspect it is like the blind men and the elephant -- each describing a different part of the larger whole truth.

CoreyD said:

I hope the above helps answer these questions for you.
God made the provision, so that he could reconcile mankind, or redeem mankind to himself.
It is the greatest gift God has given to mankind - one of high value. 1 Peter 1:18, 19
...
I hope in time you do understand how Christ sacrifice benefits all those who put faith in it.
Have you prayed about it, and studied it with the help of those who teach others about it?

Click to expand...

Corey,

I think it is safe to say that HOW God saves us is not nearly as important as the fact that He DOES save us. And ultimately we have to trust in Him. I do pray about this and I continue to research the topic.

Again, thank you so much for your kind efforts.

Best wishes

Kevin

KevinT said:

Corey,

Thank you for taking the time to put together a thoughtful reply to my post. I appreciate it!

Click to expand...

Thank you, as well.

KevinT said:

My secular education was heavily science based. And most things are taught in a way such that everything rests on underlying principles. A cannon ball travels through the air in a very particular way. Way? Well, because of momentum, initial conditions, gravity, and so on. And why do those things work the way they do? Well, because of conservation of energy, atomic structure, general relative, and so on. My point is that we learn that everything in God's creation is orderly, rational, consistent, and typically the result of underlying deeper principles.

Click to expand...

That's good. This I like.

KevinT said:

So when you point out all the places in the Bible where it is stipulated that Blood = life, and sacrifices of blood cover sin etc, I can't help but believe that these are all high-level symbols that represent a deeper meaning. I learned an expression once that "analogies don't walk on all four legs," which is a weird saying, but means that analogies can only go so far when explaining a truth. Not all parts of the analogies will hold up when compared to what is actually the case. And likewise, I think the symbolism of blood (i.e. plasma, RBC's, WBC's etc) for life is good, but not 100% correlated to reality.

Click to expand...

That's cool.
There is a lot we do not understand, as humans.
If we could reach the level of God's mind... Now that would be something... but we can't.

KevinT said:

Jesus spoke in thought-provoking parables. And this seems like a similar good one. It posits "sin" as an employer, and if you go work for this guy, you will get paid something at the end of the day. And the "wages" you will get are death.

Click to expand...

This is true.
You seem to appreciate Jesus' illustrations as much as I do.

KevinT said:

Matthew 26 -- 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

One way of thinking about this is: Jesus's blood --> sins forgiven (don't worry about the how's and why's)

Click to expand...

Interesting thought.
As a person whose secular education was heavily science based, I know that you are interested in the hows and whys. I don't have to ask.
If you aren't, I'll have to ask why, because the two don't mesh - not being concerned with the hows and whys, and a secular education that was heavily science based.

I know what would cause a person with a secular education that was heavily science based, to "erase", or try to "erase" concern with the hows and whys, and the cause is not a good one... neither the effect.
I'm happy that I can have this conversation with you, because you understand science.
For every effect there is a cause.
I hope you agree, as I understand that some scientists seem to be bucking against causality.

I'd be happy to share with you, what the cause is, if you are interested.

However, picture the scene...
Jewish religious leaders - those versed in the law - set out to trap Jesus - a man they claim has a demon - with a question.
Jesus replied, “Your mistake is that you don’t know the Scriptures, and you don’t know the power of God." Mark 12:24

Can you imagine.
I would feel embarrassed - me, a teacher of law, being told, "you don’t know the Scriptures".
Would you not be embarrassed to be told, "You don't know science." after studying it for so long... as you described it "heavily science based"?

That would not be the case with Jesus' friends, who sought to find out the whys and hows.
John 15:15; Matthew 13:10-17

They became Jesus' friends because they were not like the masses today who all are self taught. Jesus' friends are like the little child Jesus used as an example. They wanted to be taught. They were teachable.
Matthew 18:2-4
2 Jesus invited a little child to stand among them.
3 “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

KevinT said:

Another way of thinking about this is: Understanding that Adam & Eve's betrayal ceded control of Earth to Satan and that recovery of control requires trusting and following God's instructions completely -- even if to the point of death. Jesus, taught His disciples the example by willingly choosing death over distrust of God. And the disciples were thereby emboldened to accept flogging and yet say to the Jewish rulers "We must obey God rather than men" (Act 5:29). Sin may be considered a legal debt, but it should also be understood as a habitual propensity to do wrong. When a child scribbles on the wall with crayons, a mother can forgive the child and repaint the wall. But the ultimate goal is not forgiveness, but for the child to learn to stop the destructive behavior. The "forgiveness" given by the mother means that she takes care of the problem, as she goes to extra effort to compensate for the error. Jesus, by His death, does allow for "forgiveness" because He has taken care of the problem. He has regained a future for mankind rather than the complete extinction Satan desires. Jesus has regained control of Earth, He has shown us the way to overcome evil, and He has earned our love and respect.

Click to expand...

I like your illustration.

KevinT said:

The former method is the Penal Substitution theory of salvation, and what I am trying to describe in the second is more like the Moral Influence theory of salvation. I suspect it is like the blind men and the elephant -- each describing a different part of the larger whole truth.

Click to expand...

I had to look up that term Penal Substitution, as i have never heard it in my life.
Penal Substitution declares that Christ, voluntarily submitting to God the Father's plan, was punished (penalized) in the place of (substitution) sinners, thus satisfying the demands of justice and propitiation, so God can justly forgive sins making us at one with God (atonement).

I hope you did not get that from my post, because I do not believe Christ was punished in place of sinners.
Now I understand what you are saying, and I now see the significance of your illustration of the mother and child.

So, that you know, what the Bible really teaches on that.
Man was not being punished by God. Oh wow. This is interesting. Oh boy.
Man was dying, because his lifeline to God was cut... not by him, but by Adam. Man was spiraling down to a never-ending Grave.
God threw out a lifeline. In fact, as soon as Adam severed the cord, God acted immediately (Genesis 3:15)
It was God's will to save mankind from death, and connect him to the source of life, which mankind did not know, because they were alien.
Ephesians 4:18

having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;

Click to expand...

Well said NKJV

Because a death occurred, the God of justice, could only repaint the wall by abiding by own principles, and standards, since everything in God's creation is orderly, rational, consistent, and typically the result of underlying deeper principles... including his own nature, which is itself a law, and highly ordered.
This is the reason "it is impossible for God to lie." Hebrews 6:18

Hence the just way to redeem mankind was to have an equivalent of perfect Adam whose blood would be able to cover the sins of mankind.
God was in effect painting the wall and forgiving the child. Not punishing it.

Paul put it simply.
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Christ's blood is the atonement .
It's like when you have a wound, that will take time to heal. Dressing the wound will keep it free from germs, and at the same time allow it to heal.
Christ's sacrificial blood is like that dressing. Your wound will heal without leaving a scar though. Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:4

I don't know if that helps, or makes a difference, but this is a subject that a lot needs to be said, to gain a clear understanding of the whys and hows... which are important, contrary to what the cause would dictate.

KevinT said:

Corey,

I think it is safe to say that HOW God saves us is not nearly as important as the fact that He DOES save us. And ultimately we have to trust in Him. I do pray about this and I continue to research the topic.

Click to expand...

We are told it's safe to say that Kevin.
Can I make a deal with you? If God and Jesus says it's safe to say that, and you can show me where in the Bible I can find that, and I see it's there, i will agree with you, and we can shake hands on it.
Deal?

KevinT said:

Again, thank you so much for your kind efforts.

Best wishes

Kevin

Click to expand...

Thank you Kevin. thanks too for your pleasantness. It was a pleasure speaking with you.
I hope we can do it again.

peace be with you.

CoreyD said:

I had to look up that term Penal Substitution, as i have never heard it in my life.
Penal Substitution declares that Christ, voluntarily submitting to God the Father's plan, was punished (penalized) in the place of (substitution) sinners, thus satisfying the demands of justice and propitiation, so God can justly forgive sins making us at one with God (atonement).

I hope you did not get that from my post, because I do not believe Christ was punished in place of sinners.
Now I understand what you are saying, and I now see the significance of your illustration of the mother and child.

Click to expand...

CoreyD,

I don't actually recall what you wrote before, so I likely was not replying directly to you. I was more reacting to how see this sentiment expressed widely. A quick google search (What denominations believe in penal substitution) show that most evangelical protestants subscribe to this view.

CoreyD said:

We are told it's safe to say that Kevin.
Can I make a deal with you? If God and Jesus says it's safe to say that, and you can show me where in the Bible I can find that, and I see it's there, i will agree with you, and we can shake hands on it.
Deal?

Thank you Kevin. thanks too for your pleasantness. It was a pleasure speaking with you.
I hope we can do it again.

peace be with you.

Click to expand...

Likewise. I'm sure we'll bump into each other again her on the forum. And if I get wound up, just smile and pat me on the head. Ha!

God bless,

Kevin

KevinT said:

I'm thinking about God setting up a rational system, for comparative example, gravity. If I jump out of a plane without a parachute, God's system would cause me to crash into the ground and die. It's not vengeance -- it's just the way the system works. But if I am given a parachute, it would mediate the effect and I would be saved from the natural consequences. This would be an example of interacting with God's system of physical laws. Jesus could be seen in this example as the parachute perhaps (but perhaps it is a bad example).

But laws of justice can be (and are) also logical and consequential. When Cain killed Abel, everything about the event cries out for justice. Such things must not be allowed to just pass unchallenged. And anyone who has raised children know about how they all have a strong sense of what is and is not fair -- it seems to be built in. So God's laws of justice can be understood to be just as natural as physical laws.

If I think about Jesus paying a debt to justice (God's justice) in this light, perhaps I can accept it. Perhaps, but I still don't like it....

Here is why I react so negatively against the Penal Substitution view of salvation. I'll present a distorted characterization of it.

1. Tyrant Big Boss God thinks up an arbitrary rule. Let's say his subjects are not allowed to sit on the Special Chair.
2. Rebellious subject decides to sit on the Special Chair anyway.
3. Tyrant God say, "All right, I've had it. I told you my rule is that you can't sit on the Special Chair. Now you have stirred me up and I won't be satisfied until my sense of justice has been met. Someone's going to have to pay for this! I'm indignant with wrath!"
4. Mediator Son of God says, "Hey, Dad. Give them a break. Look, I spilled my blood. Remember the special system we set up whereby blood cancels out sin -- can't remember exactly how that works, but that's the deal we made. Anyway, don't be so angry."
5. Tyrant God, who really does like his Son, says, "All right, since you spilled your blood, I guess my drive for Justice can be satisfied." Rebellious subject, we're cool -- but just remember that it was my Son that bailed you out. And if you do it again, I guess He'll bail you out again.

Obviously this is NOT reality, but it is what goes through my mind whenever someone talks about how the blood of Jesus somehow cancels out sins, and corrects an injustice in the world. How does some plasma, some red blood cells, a few white blood cells, and some platelets do anything to change the fact that Cain killed Abel, or perhaps that I just threw a rock through my neighbor's window?

After Adam and Eve sinned, God brought them clothes made of skin -- skin from a dead animal. It must have made Adam and Even feel terrible that one of their loved creatures had to die to cover their nakedness. And they certainly would have thought quite a bit about the wrong they had done. God accepted Abel's offerings from the flock, so clearly He had set up the system of sacrifices at that time. Was God wanting animals to be killed because He was hungry? Because he liked the smell of burning flesh? Because He was angry and the death of the animals mollified Him? No! The purpose was to reach the hearts of man, and to help them realize that all the bad things they did caused bad consequences that God has to then set aright.

Over time, the system of sacrifices became so distorted that it was thought that the death of the animal someone "paid" for the wrong doing. And from that, people came to thing that "Justice" was somehow paid off.

But the entire paradigm has lost its meaning and had to be thrown out. An animal's death doesn't pay for a person's sins. As above, we can debate if there is a particular way one could frame the situation such that the death of Jesus "pays" for sins. But who does he pay this to? To the Devil? To God? To the system of Justice that God instituted? How does that work? What is Just about accepting blood in lieu of consequences?

It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems arbitrary and petty. I know Penal Substitution does make sense to others, and maybe with time I can understand better where they are coming from.

KT

Click to expand...

KT, while I don't like labeling bits of theology, I don't think there's a clear and distinct problem with accepting both the Penal Substitution Theory along with the Christus Victor Theory. I think both can essentially be drawn out from the totality of Scripture, especially if both are seen in light of the contextual fact that the idea of Justice in the Bible is ancient and foreign to that which we think we so cherish today.

This also means we'll have to set aside modern notions of Justice in order to attempt to understand 'how' Jesus' death on the Cross provides atonement for our sins.

KevinT said:

I'm thinking about God setting up a rational system, for comparative example, gravity. If I jump out of a plane without a parachute, God's system would cause me to crash into the ground and die. It's not vengeance -- it's just the way the system works. But if I am given a parachute, it would mediate the effect and I would be saved from the natural consequences. This would be an example of interacting with God's system of physical laws. Jesus could be seen in this example as the parachute perhaps (but perhaps it is a bad example).
But laws of justice can be (and are) also logical and consequential. When Cain killed Abel, everything about the event cries out for justice. Such things must not be allowed to just pass unchallenged. And anyone who has raised children know about how they all have a strong sense of what is and is not fair -- it seems to be built in. So God's laws of justice can be understood to be just as natural as physical laws.
If I think about Jesus paying a debt to justice (God's justice) in this light, perhaps I can accept it. Perhaps, but I still don't like it....
Here is why I react so negatively against the Penal Substitution view of salvation. I'll present a distorted characterization of it.

1. Tyrant Big Boss God thinks up an arbitrary rule. Let's say his subjects are not allowed to sit on the Special Chair.
2. Rebellious subject decides to sit on the Special Chair anyway.
3. Tyrant God say, "All right, I've had it. I told you my rule is that you can't sit on the Special Chair. Now you have stirred me up and I won't be satisfied until my sense of justice has been met. Someone's going to have to pay for this! I'm indignant with wrath!"
4. Mediator Son of God says, "Hey, Dad. Give them a break. Look, I spilled my blood. Remember the special system we set up whereby blood cancels out sin -- can't remember exactly how that works, but that's the deal we made. Anyway, don't be so angry."
5. Tyrant God, who really does like his Son, says, "All right, since you spilled your blood, I guess my drive for Justice can be satisfied." Rebellious subject, we're cool -- but just remember that it was my Son that bailed you out. And if you do it again, I guess He'll bail you out again.

Click to expand...

Obviously this is NOT reality, but it is what goes through my mind whenever someone talks about how the blood of Jesus somehow cancels out sins,

Click to expand...

The Holy Spirit gives us to agree with God, Kevin.
Apart from the Holy Spirit, one can neither understand, accept nor agree with God in his word.
The Bible is a closed book wherever the Holy Spirit does not operate.

"My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your way my ways," declares the Lord.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)

KevinT said:

and corrects an injustice in the world. How does some plasma, some red blood cells, a few white blood cells, and some platelets
do anything to change the fact that Cain killed Abel, or perhaps that I just threw a rock through my neighbor's window?

Click to expand...

The same way a $150 fine changes the fact of your running a stop sign.

God is just. All his attributes are governed by his justice, including his mercy (which is why God's mercy required his own Son's payment of the penalty of his justice for the crime of our sin).

Would you want to live in a society where there was no justice--no payment required for law-breaking, murder, theft, etc.?

The life is in the blood (Lev 17:11). . .shed blood (in sacrifice) = death penalty (penal atonement).
Disobedience to an Infinite God merits the death penalty (as Adam learned--both spiritually and physically).
In mercy in the Mosaic law, animals were given to die as substitutes in the sinner's place for the death penalty on their sin, as a type/pattern of the once-for-all redeeming sacrifice of God's own Son as the substitute for the death penalty on the sin of those who believe in and trust on him.

KevinT said:

After Adam and Eve sinned, God brought them clothes made of skin -- skin from a dead animal. It must have made Adam and Even feel terrible that one of their loved creatures had to die to cover their nakedness. And they certainly would have thought quite a bit about the wrong they had done. God accepted Abel's offerings from the flock, so clearly He had set up the system of sacrifices at that time. Was God wanting animals to be killed because He was hungry? Because he liked the smell of burning flesh? Because He was angry and the death of the animals mollified Him? No! The purpose was to reach the hearts of man, and to help them realize that all the bad things they did caused bad consequences that God has to then set aright.

Click to expand...

Actually, you are cutting God down to your size, Kevin. . ."humanizing" him according to human notions.

It's about justice. . .no more and no less. . .it's not about simply demonstrating a lesson.

KevinT said:

Over time, the system of sacrifices became so distorted that it was thought that the death of the animal someone "paid" for the wrong doing.

Click to expand...

Only if the word of God got it wrong, where in Lev 5:6,7, 15, 6:6, 26:41, 43 we read - "as a penalty for the sin they committed, they must bring. . ."

Too much human thinking, and not enough of God's thinking from his word here. . .

KevinT said:

And from that, people came to thing that "Justice" was somehow paid off.

Click to expand...

And from that, we learned that God's justice was "something" that had to be satisfied, that demanded retribution,
just as running the stop sign demands retribution (a fine).

KevinT said:

But the entire paradigm has lost its meaning and had to be thrown out.

Click to expand...

Sez who?. . ."thrown out" by whom?

The entire "paradigm" was a pre-figure of Christ's subsitutionary atonement for our sin, and was FULFILLED on the cross, not "thrown out."
How much of the gospel do you really know?

KevinT said:

An animal's death doesn't pay for a person's sins. As above, we can debate if there is a particular way one could frame the situation such that the death of Jesus "pays" for sins. But who does he pay this to?

Click to expand...

All debts for infractions of law are paid to justice.

KevinT said:

To the Devil? To God? To the system of Justice that God instituted? How does that work?
What is Just about accepting blood in lieu of consequences?

Click to expand...

Death is the consequences. . .the consequences for disobeying God is death of the offender, for whom the animal sacrifices was a substitute, as Christ was a substitute for me.

In his mercy, God has agreed to accept the death of another in place of one's own death for one's own sin. . .that being the death of his OWN Son.
That truth was prefigured in the OT animal sacrificial deaths in place of the Israelite sinner's death for his own sin.

KevinT said:

It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems arbitrary and petty. I know Penal Substitution does make sense to others, and
maybe with time I can understand better where they are coming from.

Click to expand...

Not apart from the Holy Spirit's enlightenment of you in the Scriptures.

Clare73 said:

Apart from the Holy Spirit, one can neither understand, accept nor agree with God in his word.
The Bible is a closed book wherever the Holy Spirit does not operate.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree. Can you give a support for this? When God says, "Honor your father and mother so that it will go well with you..." I think He fully expected that His audience could understand what was meant, without any special working of the Spirit. And when Jesus taught on the Sermon on the Mount about "Blessed are the poor in spirit", that also was meant to be understood.

Clare73 said:

The same way a $150 fine changes the fact of your running a stop sign.

God is just. All his attributes are governed by his justice, including his mercy (which is why God's mercy required his own Son's payment of the penalty of his justice for the crime of our sin).

Would you want to live in a society where there was no justice--no payment required for law-breaking, murder, theft, etc.?

Click to expand...

I don't want to live in a society where justice is absent. I just have a bit of trouble with how Justice is determined. Does any powerful entity get to arbitrarily determine what is just? Or is there something intrinsic about it that all can agree on?

I once visited Thailand and visited one of the tourist sites that was a Buddhist temple. There, they require bare legs to be covered up. And when sitting in the temple, they see orienting the soles of one's feet in the direction of the image of Buddha to be very disrespectful and not to be tolerated. This didn't happen, but imagine a tourist deciding to expose his bare legs and point his dirty feet at Buddha, and imagine that the punishment was a flogging. All the locals might nod their heads in agreement. "It's just", they would agree. "This tourist did a bad thing and it is only just that he have this punishment." This is a bad example because Buddhist tend to be pacifists, but just transpose the example to a more radical religion to get to the same point.

The point I am trying to make is that INSIDE the belief system, where everyone agrees on the basic points (in this case that Buddha should be worshiped, and that feet are disrespectful), this it makes sense to agree on "justice." But if I was in the above situation, and I saw a tourist flogged for not keeping his legs wrapped on a hot day, and simply letting his feet point in the direction of an anti-Christian idol, that I would NOT feel that justice had been served.

So, now with God, He could set any sort of rules He wants, and when anyone breaks them, He would rightly be "just" in punishing them. As the ruler of the universe, He can assert "might is right." And perhaps it is enough to just go with that. But I think God wants us to understand WHY something is bad so that we can fully appreciate how wonderful His ways actually are.

Clare73 said:

The life is in the blood (Lev 17:11). . .shed blood (in sacrifice) = death penalty (penal atonement).
Disobedience to an Infinite God merits the death penalty (as Adam learned--both spiritually and physically).
In mercy in the Mosaic law, animals were given to die as substitutes in the sinner's place for the death penalty on their sin, as a type/pattern of the once-for-all redeeming sacrifice of God's own Son as the substitute for the death penalty on the sin of those who believe in and trust on him.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that the old testament sacrifices were a type (symbol) of the death of the messiah (Christ) to come. But I am further asserting that the teaching of Christ's death as "paying" for sins is a further type for a deeper truth.

Clare73 said:

And from that, we learned that God's justice was "something" that had to be satisfied, that demanded retribution,
just as running the stop sign demands retribution (a fine).

Click to expand...

I think this stop sign is a good example, where I hypothetically ran the stop sign and am given a fine. Perhaps my Elder Brother even agrees to pay for my fine. If I think about this as a simple legal transaction, then all is well and good. Fine levied and paid. End of story. I am just pointing out, why was that stop sign there in the first place? What happened when I ran that stop sign? What if my disregard of that law led to the death of someone in a different car, would a fine cover that?

I have been trying to point out that a stop sign is not some arbitrary rule, and having someone pay for my fine doesn't change the fact that I am endangering everyone else on the road. Likewise, if I am a thief, and I continue to steal, then Christ paying for my sin (presumably to the Father who is collecting the fines), then I am still a danger to my community.

I am asserting that Christ, though His shedding of blood on the cross in obedience to the Father, has regained the kingship of Earth, and earned the eternal love of mankind, and is thereby enabled to reach our hearts such that we want to STOP being a thief. And it is in that perspective that he "paid for the sins" of the thief. He made an extra effort at a cost to Himself. He paid a cost, but the Father did not collect that cost as a payment.

Clare73 said:

Sez who?. . ."thrown out" by whom? The entire "paradigm" was a pre-figure of Christ's subsitutionary atonement for our sin, and was FULFILLED on the cross, not "thrown out."
How much of the gospel do you really know?

Click to expand...

Ouch. Questioning my knowledge of the gospel is not exactly kind. I read the Bible cover-to-cover about 2-3 times a year. Perhaps "thrown out" was a bit too strong of a word. I was trying to say that just as the author of Hebrews pointed out that the blood of sheep and goats could never take away sin (Heb 10:4-10), the old system was changed, put aside, deprecated, "thrown out". I wasn't trying to contrast discarding vs fulfilling. I was just pointing out that it was done away with.

Clare73 said:

All debts for infractions of law are paid to justice.

Death is the consequences. . .the consequences for disobeying God is death of the offender, for whom the animal sacrifices was a substitute, as Christ was a substitute for me.

In his mercy, God has agreed to accept the death of another in place of one's own death for one's own sin. . .that being the death of his OWN Son.
That truth was prefigured in the OT animal sacrificial deaths in place of the Israelite sinner's death for his own sin.

Click to expand...

Clare, you are following to the letter the symbolism that is presented in the Bible. I wouldn't think of taking that away from you. I like to try to figure out the underlying meaning of the types/patterns. But if you want to just stick with the exact reading, fine. I think it leads to unfortunate conclusions, but perhaps we can agree to disagree on this point.

Best wishes,

Kevin

KevinT said:

I'm not sure I agree. Can you give a support for this? When God says, "Honor your father and mother so that it will go well with you..." I think He fully expected that His audience could understand what was meant, without any special working of the Spirit. And when Jesus taught on the Sermon on the Mount about "Blessed are the poor in spirit", that also was meant to be understood.

Click to expand...

The obvious does not give integrated understanding of the not-so-obvious nor of the hidden.

KevinT said:

I don't want to live in a society where justice is absent. I just have a bit of trouble with how Justice is determined. Does any powerful entity get to arbitrarily determine what is just? Or is there something intrinsic about it that all can agree on?

Click to expand...

Bringing God down to your size again. . .
God's justice is not based on the human order.
The human order is based on God's justice.

Nor is justice a matter of popular vote, any more than gravity is a matter of popular vote.
Justice is giving everyone his due, what he has earned or is owed.

I see no one has figured it out yet. The answer is so simple.

There is only one entity in the Bible that is famous for desiring Blood.

Call it Child Support, Alimony, it all has to be paid to the Ex-Wife somehow.