Payer is God - the unblemished of firstborn of the flock is the property of God.
The payment is to redeem the firstborn of his people from the bondage to the pharaoh. The word ransom is english and modern. The greek λύτρον is plainly has to do with slavery.
Exodus 13:13-14 shows the ransom with respect firstlings
>Be more specific. I suspect you once again misunderstand "ransom"
>Be more specific. I recollect no call for discipline of the Israelites in that Abrahamic epoch.
The person is to give to God the first and best of the flock, since if it is God giving it up, the person is not making a sacrifice. As Abraham could not take a gift and make it a sacrifice without costing him something the sacrifice has to be a sacrifice for the person.
Do you feel the brothers of Joseph felt no pain down through the years for selling Joseph into slavery?
A parent if at all possible, will see to the disciplining of their children, but if someone doe not accept fair/just disciplining they will eventually be punished (and not disciplined).
After Joseph died did the Israelites continue to be strong faithful followers of God or did they turn away needing sever disciplining to bring them back?
The word in the Greek scholars translate to come up with the English word ransom, has to do with setting someone captive free. When Jesus talks about being a ransom for many, it is not like purchasing a slave or the slave buying their freedom, but making an unbelievable huge sacrificial payment like is needed to pay off a kidnapper.
The point is Jesus is the Lamb. He is the only begotten Son of God. He is the Male Lamb. OT rules specifies the meaning of his sacrifice. Talking about other animals is impertinent.
A lot of times we take the reality that happened and try to make it fit the shadow, when they are just the shadow of the reality. We should not be trying to make Jesus fit the “Lambs” of the Old Testament rules, but see how these lambs were just a poor representative (shadow) of what Christ did.
The doves, bags of flour, bulls and goats all are shadow sacrifices of the reality in Christ’s sacrifice, which we can learn from, but they have their limits, just as the lamb sacrifice has its limits.
We can certainly take the sin offering lamb or goat in lev. 5 as a shadow example of Christ’s being sacrificed.
The writer tells us the relationship the sinner had with the sacrifice: Lev. 5:6 As a
penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering.
It is as a penalty or punishment, which since this is a child of God it might best be described as discipline.
Support for this understanding comes from Lev. 5 also: The penalty (hardship/punishment/discipline) is made equal for the sinner by increasing in proportion to the wealth of the sinner. From a bag of flour to a Lamb, depending on the wealth of the sinner. God would not see a wealthy person having more value and the sins are exactly the same.
If we were talking about the lamb or bag of flour being a ransom or substitute for a sinner, then the ransom should be equal, for equal sin and humans being equal.
Once again you misunderstand ransom as the modern meaning. There is no kidnapper per se. The slave owner is sin, the bondage is death. Jesus is the Messiah (Liberator). Liberation from the Sin, who's wages is death. The price of liberation from Sin is death - the ransom. Jesus died (paid the price) as ransom for our freedom from sin.
The New Testament Letters are written to first century readers not always Jews familiar with the OT , especially Christians. We need to know how they best would understand these words, since that is who the author is addressing, we are reading other people’s mail. Ransoming people was heavily done in the first century, because there were no banks holding cash. People would have been familiar with Julius Caesar’s kidnapping and his ransom.
Yes, paying to free a slave was a ransom payment, but that payment was reasonable, not a huge hardship on the person paying, and often the freed slave could pay the ransom payment back.
Sin is an intangible, if you pay it something it does nothing (it cannot change). Sin itself is a description of some act, but it takes a sinner to perform the action. A large list of ways to sin is not the fault for people sinning (Adam and Eve had only one way to sin and sinned). The person is not forced to sin, but sins of their own free will, so we cannot correct/change or do something for the intangible “sin”, but the sinner needs to be helped to change.
Jesus and God are the ones making the huge sacrificial payment the closes similarity would be parents making a huge sacrificial payment for their children, but with Christ he is also the sacrifice itself.
How is Jesus liberating the unbelieving sinner from sin with his death? Does the person quit sinning? Is sin no longer a problem for this converted sinner? Where is this concept presented in scripture? Did Peter talk about this in his wonderful Christ Crucified Sermon (acts 2)?
Do you agree:
We go to the unbelieving sinner trying to get him/her to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and not some message, doctrine, church, book or whatever. If the unbeliever sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, a child is kept out of the Kingdom, but if the sinner accepts, “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”, then a child is set free to enter the Kingdom and be with God. Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer describes the huge ransom payment as being “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and that ransom sets a sinner free to enter the Kingdom.
What am I saying wrong?