A ransom for many

[Xeno.of.athens]

but your commentary is not in my bible either.

Oh, but indeed it is.

It isn't, though, is it. The commentary is not a part of the inspired text. It's an opinion about the meaning of the text.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Here are all the verses in the KJV that use the English word "Ransom":

Exo 21:30; Exo 30:12; Job 33:24; Job 36:18; Psa 49:7; Pro 6:35; Pro 13:8; Pro 21:18; Isa 43:3; Hos 13:14; Mat 20:28; Mar 10:45; 1Ti 2:6.​

What does it mean when it says Christ is given a ransom for many. A ransom to whom for what?

It's also used in 4 Macc 17 where the martyrs "ransom" the sins of Israel (17:21-22). This one might be better for undertanding what it meant in the late 2nd temple period.

 

[Clare73]

It isn't, though, is it. The commentary is not a part of the inspired text. It's an opinion about the meaning of the text.

Supported by the rest of Scripture.

Feel free to demonstrate what is contra-Biblical.

 

[bling]

Penal substitution at its core - merely says that the punishment that the Law demands for sin - is put upon Christ instead of the sinner. He pays our debt in our place. It is the statement from the POV of a court of law.

Ransom for many simply says that the payment owed for many - is provided. It does not get into the detail of whether the payment that is required was just or not --

in fact the word "ransom" could lead one to conclude that it is an unjust/illegal/unlawful scenario that one pays to get out of. Criminals demand a ransom and when they get it - they let their prisoner go free - but nothing about their demand of ransom is legal, just or right.


RANSOM

1 : to deliver especially from sin or its penalty​

2 : to free from captivity or punishment by paying a price​

So Ransom is more generic and can apply to a number of different scenarios.

But given a certain limitation on the "Ransom" scenarios - it begins to look like 6 of one and half-dozen of the other.

do you care to comment on my post 3?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Supported by the rest of Scripture.

Feel free to demonstrate what is contra-Biblical.

That is not how proof of a concept goes; the onus of proof is always on the side that makes the assertion, in this case that would be you.

 

[Clare73]

That is not how proof of a concept goes; the onus of proof is always on the side that makes the assertion, in this case that would be you.

No specific statement has been presented that I should demonstrate, not to mention the abundance of Scriptural verification provided in my post (#11).

 

[BobRyan]

First off: It is good to go back and look at how a word was used throughout scripture, but words used in Old Testament times, which can be a 1000 years earlier may not help us to understand the meaning of a Greek word used in a New Testament Letter or by Christ, the most excellent communicator. If a New Testament author is quoting from the OT than yes, we need to know how the word was used in the OT passage quoted. Remember these NT letters and sermons were said to best communicate to the NT audience being addressed, we have to try and figure out what they would understand. The word “ransom” in the OT could be a small as the temple tax paid annually by the individual themselves, it did not set anyone free, it was not a big sacrifice, and it was a legal justified payment (tax). There were also “ransom” payments made by the individual themselves to free them from slavery or to save their own life, but these had to be reasonable and acceptable to the person being paid, again they were not huge payments and the person demanding the payment was not a criminal kidnapper.

When it comes to the New Testament times in the Roman empire, people are very knowledgeable of sons being kidnapped by criminal kidnappers for a huge ransom, paid by wealthy parents and hopefully accepted by the kidnappers. Julious Ceasar was kidnapped by pirates at age 21 and a huge sum was paid by his parents to get him back, which most people in the Roman empire knew about.

We are really talking about atonement, which is a huge misunderstood topic with all the theories doing a poor job explaining, look at the ransom portion:

I don't think the NT is trying to describe the payment as "small" or "minor" in terms of Christ who gave "His life a ransom for many - but I agree that it is legal and just.

The Bible refers to Jesus’ sacrifice as a literal ransom payment:

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time

Heb. 9: 15…now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

We do have the blood specifically mentioned in Revelation 5:9 They sing a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation;

Nice list. Thanks.

We should agree on:

1. Jesus life and death is the unbelievable huge ransom payment?

2. The ransom payment was made to set children free to go to the Kingdom and be with the Father?

3. Deity (Jesus and God both) made this unbelievable huge payment?

4. All these fit perfectly a ransom scenario?

5. The scripture is not describing Jesus’ cruel torturous death on the cross as being like a ransom payment, but as being a ransom payment?

true. huge debt paid by huge payment.

A kidnapper, in general, holds back the parent’s children awaiting an acceptable ransom payment, so who do you blame for keeping children out of the Kingdom?

The Kidnapper cannot be God, since He is not an undeserving criminal kidnapper holding His own children back.

There is no kidnapper.
God is the one that set the rule "the wages of sin is death" Rom 6:23
in John 10 where Lazarus dies - Jesus said "he who believes on me - never dies" which means Jesus did not count the first death as anything. It means that saving us from the "second death" of Rev 20 -- is everything. But the second death is not manufactured by Satan or by humans -- God alone creates that "Second resurrection" event in Rev 20, and the "second death" that ends it.

Also, the Kidnapper would not be satan, since God has the power to take from satan, without paying anything to satan

Agreed. Nothing in this whole thing has anything to do with paying satan or making satan happy in any way.

There is no cosmic Law saying you got to pay the kidnapper

There is the cosmic law of Rom 6:23 and Romans 7 that binds the sinner to the penalty of God's Law - and in God's Law the sinner is doomed to the second death. More specifically as Luke 12 points out -- the sinner owes and exact amount for an exact amount of sin - such that some owe more than others.

Luke 12:47 And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accordance with his will, will receive many blows, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed acts deserving of a beating, will receive only a few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is described in scripture as the ransom payment.
Could the sinner holding a child of God out of the Kingdom of God, be described as a criminal kidnapper?

No because the sinner does not get paid nor does the sinner "Agree" to free the soul because the sinner is "satisfied with Christ's death".
As Peter points out in the Gospels - the followers of Christ don't want him to die at all.

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is a huge sacrificial payment,

true. As Is 53 - "He gave Himself as a sin offering" -- Atonement.
To be acceptable to God that sin offering has to be without blemish -- Christ the sinless one.

 

[BobRyan]

It isn't, though, is it. The commentary is not a part of the inspired text. It's an opinion about the meaning of the text.

True -- it is the text of scripture that matters - not what some non-scripture source claims about it.

But I would argue that this is true - No matter how much tradition they claim for that source.

 

[bling]

I don't think the NT is trying to describe the payment as "small" or "minor" in terms of Christ who gave "His life a ransom for many - but I agree that it is legal and just.

Nice list. Thanks.

true. huge debt paid by huge payment.

Thank you for your reply.

There is no kidnapper.
God is the one that set the rule "the wages of sin is death" Rom 6:23
in John 10 where Lazarus dies - Jesus said "he who believes on me - never dies" which means Jesus did not count the first death as anything. It means that saving us from the "second death" of Rev 20 -- is everything. But the second death is not manufactured by Satan or by humans -- God alone creates that "Second resurrection" event in Rev 20, and the "second death" that ends it.

Agreed. Nothing in this whole thing has anything to do with paying satan or making satan happy in any way.

There is the cosmic law of Rom 6:23 and Romans 7 that binds the sinner to the penalty of God's Law - and in God's Law the sinner is doomed to the second death. More specifically as Luke 12 points out -- the sinner owes and exact amount for an exact amount of sin - such that some owe more than others.

Luke 12:47 And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accordance with his will, will receive many blows, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed acts deserving of a beating, will receive only a few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

No because the sinner does not get paid nor does the sinner "Agree" to free the soul because the sinner is "satisfied with Christ's death".
As Peter points out in the Gospels - the followers of Christ don't want him to die at all.

true. As Is 53 - "He gave Himself as a sin offering" -- Atonement.
To be acceptable to God that sin offering has to be without blemish -- Christ the sinless one.

Our sins were an offence against God and might be referred to as an unbelievable huge debt, like the servant had in Matt.18, but our debt has been 100% forgiven by God, if we accept God’s undeserved charity as charity, so there is no payment needed or really possible, since any good done by anyone, cannot make up for the bad done against God, it was forgiven.

We are not talking about “the wage of sin” which we, as sinners, would be collecting, unless the sins are forgiven and then there is no wage for us to collect. If Christ is collecting the wage for us, then it is not like a ransom scenario, since Christ is collecting our pay, which is not what is being described.

If Christ is paying our “debt” to God than Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder (ransom) is to God, but why would that be desired by God?

Do you feel Christ is going through the second death?

Just answer me this: When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner, what are you trying to get him/her to accept: A doctrine, a denomination, a book, a theology, a church or something else? Do you want the nonbeliever to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and if he does accept this, will a child of God is released to enter the Kingdom and be with God, but if the sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him crucifies” will a child is kept out of the Kingdom?

 

[bling]

That is not how proof of a concept goes; the onus of proof is always on the side that makes the assertion, in this case that would be you.

Did you read my post 3?

 

[Brightfame52]

Penal substitution at its core - merely says that the punishment that the Law demands for sin - is put upon Christ instead of the sinner. He pays our debt in our place. It is the statement from the POV of a court of law.

Ransom for many simply says that the payment owed for many - is provided. It does not get into the detail of whether the payment that is required was just or not --

in fact the word "ransom" could lead one to conclude that it is an unjust/illegal/unlawful scenario that one pays to get out of. Criminals demand a ransom and when they get it - they let their prisoner go free - but nothing about their demand of ransom is legal, just or right.


RANSOM

1 : to deliver especially from sin or its penalty​

2 : to free from captivity or punishment by paying a price​

So Ransom is more generic and can apply to a number of different scenarios.

But given a certain limitation on the "Ransom" scenarios - it begins to look like 6 of one and half-dozen of the other.

So do you believe in limited effectual ransom or redemption ?

 

[BobRyan]

So do you believe in limited effectual ransom or redemption ?

1 John 2:2 we have unlimited atoning sacrifice
2 and He Himself is the Atoning Sacrifice for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

God's model of Atonement includes "Atoning Sacrifice" as we see in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" -- but the work does not end at the point that the sacrifice is slain. The work of High Priest is also needed.

IN Matt 7 we know that the "many" are on the wide road that leads to ultimate failure.

2 Peter 3 "God is not WILLING that any should perish but that all should come to repentance".

And yet as we see in John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not"

Matt 23 - says "Jerusalem Jerusalem .. how I wanted to spare you... but you would not"

So then not everyone will be saved in the end -- not because of any failure on God's part for "God is not partial" Rom 2:11.

 

[BobRyan]

We are not talking about “the wage of sin” which we, as sinners, would be collecting, unless the sins are forgiven and then there is no wage for us to collect. If Christ is collecting the wage for us, then it is not like a ransom scenario, since Christ is collecting our pay, which is not what is being described.

"the WAGES of sin is DEATH" - Rom 6:23 -- that is exactly what is going on.

Christ is getting the "second death" that our sins deserve. Our debt is what His death is addressing.
The muderer is "owed" death - as Rom 6:23 sates.

If Christ is paying our “debt” to God than Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder (ransom) is to God

IT does not say "to God" because God is the one being tortured. God is the one paying.

, but why would that be desired by God?

God is the one that came up with the entire concept of "Atonement".
Initially as we see in Gen 2 God's statement was that mankind would die. Nothing about anyone paying someone else's debt for them.

But when sin entered the World - God's Gospel plan of redemption was initiated. It was His own plan to identify with humanity and pay our debt in our place. God did not "desire man to fall" and does not "desire humans to sin" or to reject the gospel etc.

But out of Love He is willing to bail us out of the problem we got ourselves into. This creates a problem for HIM in that He must still be just and righteous at the SAME time that He is merciful and forgiving. If He simply deletes the moral law of the universe -- what He gets is "chaos". So He finds a way to have BOTH justice AND Mercy in His government.

Preserving the integrity of His own Law and also being merciful to "whosoever will".

Do you feel Christ is going through the second death?

No -- He paid that debt on the cross. Then His statement was made that "it is finished". The Atoning Sacrifice sufficient for all debt owed for all sins of all humans in all of time completed at the cross "once for all time".

Just answer me this: When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner, what are you trying to get him/her to accept:

The Gospel ... which is the Bible teaching (doctrine) on salvation that calls the lost sinner to accept Christ as their Savior, repent, confess, agree to be included in the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-12

Do you want the nonbeliever to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”

Jesus is "the Way the TRUTH and the Life" - John 14 - to reject the Word of God is to reject Christ who IS the Word according to John 1:1.

2 Thess 2 says that the truth-rejecting model does not lead to eternal life.

8 Then that lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will eliminate with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved.

 

[Brightfame52]

1 John 2:2 we have unlimited atoning sacrifice
2 and He Himself is the Atoning Sacrifice for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

God's model of Atonement includes "Atoning Sacrifice" as we see in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" -- but the work does not end at the point that the sacrifice is slain. The work of High Priest is also needed.

IN Matt 7 we know that the "many" are on the wide road that leads to ultimate failure.

2 Peter 3 "God is not WILLING that any should perish but that all should come to repentance".

And yet as we see in John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not"

Matt 23 - says "Jerusalem Jerusalem .. how I wanted to spare you... but you would not"

So then not everyone will be saved in the end -- not because of any failure on God's part for "God is not partial" Rom 2:11.

Well then you dont believe His death ransomed anyone. The Ones He ransomed are saved, set free from the world, flesh and devil.

 

[bling]

"the WAGES of sin is DEATH" - Rom 6:23 -- that is exactly what is going on.

Christ is getting the "second death" that our sins deserve. Our debt is what His death is addressing.
The muderer is "owed" death - as Rom 6:23 sates.

The second death is an earned/deserved hell for each of us, so did Christ experience hell for all mankind, hell for just those saved, one individual’s hell, the torturous painful death I individually deserve or something else?

Are my sins causing a nano second of Christ’s time on the cross?

You are saying the wage payment to sinful man is a debt owed by sinful man, but a wage is not the same as a debt.

Since God has forgiven my sins 100% there is no debt owed, so why is Christ “paying” or receiving payment (wages) for a forgiven debt?

Paul in “Ro. 6: 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” is contrasting what we earned and deserve, with an unearned undeserved gift, eternal life, but is not conveying the idea Christ collected the payment, but in someway provided the gift of eternal life.

IT does not say "to God" because God is the one being tortured. God is the one paying.

Who else would we owe this unbelievable huge debt to? Our sins creating an unbelievable huge debt against God and God alone. Why would God need to pay Himself (that sounds silly)?

The whole idea of “the innocent being tortured, so the guilty can go free”, is against the Biblical definition of just and fair.

God is the one that came up with the entire concept of "Atonement".
Initially as we see in Gen 2 God's statement was that mankind would die. Nothing about anyone paying someone else's debt for them.

But when sin entered the World - God's Gospel plan of redemption was initiated. It was His own plan to identify with humanity and pay our debt in our place. God did not "desire man to fall" and does not "desire humans to sin" or to reject the gospel etc.

But out of Love He is willing to bail us out of the problem we got ourselves into. This creates a problem for HIM in that He must still be just and righteous at the SAME time that He is merciful and forgiving. If He simply deletes the moral law of the universe -- what He gets is "chaos". So He finds a way to have BOTH justice AND Mercy in His government.

Preserving the integrity of His own Law and also being merciful to "whosoever will".

I totally agree with you here: “Nothing about anyone paying someone else's debt for them.”

Adam and Eve did spiritually die immediately being separated from God and eventually physically.

God forgave and will forgive 100% anyone who humbly accepts His forgiveness as pure undeserved charity.

Sin was inevitable for all mature adults.

It is not “just” to both forgive 100% and require 100% payment. Any good wonderful Loving parent can easily forgive their rebellious disobedient child, but the child has to correctly humble accept being forgiven as pure undeserved charity or the transaction of forgiveness did not take place (Matt. 18), the problem is the Loving parent also needs to see to Loving discipline of the child if at all possible. With Loving disciple correctly accepted there is nothing unjust.

There is no “cosmic rule” out there, God did not create knowing what all it might mean.

No -- He paid that debt on the cross. Then His statement was made that "it is finished". The Atoning Sacrifice sufficient for all debt owed for all sins of all humans in all of time completed at the cross "once for all time".

It was finished, but He also said that before he physically died, so what was finished?

I agree: “Christ was a sufficient Atonement Sacrifice”, but there is more to the atonement process than just the sacrifice, so what is your part, how and why?

The Gospel ... which is the Bible teaching (doctrine) on salvation that calls the lost sinner to accept Christ as their Savior, repent, confess, agree to be included in the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-12

Can a person accept this doctrine without accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified and if he accepts Jesus Christ and Him Crucified has he accepted the Gospel (doctrine)?

Jesus is "the Way the TRUTH and the Life" - John 14 - to reject the Word of God is to reject Christ who IS the Word according to John 1:1.

2 Thess 2 says that the truth-rejecting model does not lead to eternal life.

8 Then that lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will eliminate with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved.

What do you consider is the “Word of God”, you are talking about?

Is the “word” in John 1 referring to the Bible, some doctrine or Christ Himself?