Did Jesus take the punishment for our sins?

[Monna]

We give ourselves over to satan, where does it say satan paid for us?

We often use phrases "paid for" or "paid with" without a clear indication of who the payment was paid to.

A reckless driver may pay with his life for his recklessness on the road. Who does s/he pay to?

A rock climber may pay with his life for making a single bad decision, or losing his grip because of sweaty fingers, but who does he pay to? The "law of gravity," the hard and jagged rocks he falls on? And in what sense does gravity or the rocks benefit from this payment? God created the fundamental physical laws of the universe and the rocks. Does the climber indirectly pay God? Do we even hold God responsible (and therefore liable)? Of course not.

All the men and women who join the military and go to fight for whatever purpose or "side" may "pay the ultimate price," but to whom do they pay this? the people or cause they are fighting for, or the people or cause they are fighting against? Satan, who uses various means to cause enimity and war? or God, whom we say "is in control - still on the throne?"

Or the parent who pays with his/her life saving their child from drowning? The cost is very high - life itself, but the parent is willing to pay it. But to whom does such a person pay?

Perhaps it is similar with the death of Jesus? He paid with his life, but is it necessary to identify to whom he paid? It was a sacrifice, a giving up of something. We are told to "deny ourselves, take up our cross daily, and follow Jesus." Give up our self-centred desires, take up our cross. These things can be "costly" - there may be things we pay (reputation among friends and colleagues, some of our "hard earned money," etc.) - i.e. it is hard. And IF we do it out of love as an act of following Jesus, we get great benefits. IF we don't do it out of love, according to 1 Cor 13, it is of no benefit to us. In this case, we "pay" much for nothing. In the first case we "pay a cost", but get benefit. But to whom do we "pay" this cost? We are to submit ourselves as "living sacrifices" to God, but is this in any way a payment to God in the same way as paying the restaurant for the meal we consume there? In reality everything (including our life itself) we have and are already belongs to Him - so how can anything we do be a payment by us to Him?

 

[Monna]

Are you suggesting this unbelievable huge ransom payment is made to satan? Why would God owe satan anything?

Another thought on redemption ... to whom was the payment made?

In the story of Ruth, and the "redemption" of Elimelech's property:
Elimelech was Naomi husband. He owned property in Israel, and it remained his even when he emigrated with his family to Moab. Ruth was his daughter in law. It is probable that he made some kind of payment to her family when his son married her. In that economic sense she "belonged" to his family. Both father and son died. Naomi decides to return to Bethlehem, and Ruch determines to go with her.
According to Israelite custom instituted through the laws of Moses (given by God), since there were no (male) heirs, the estate should be "redeemed" by a close relative (and there was a specified order regarding who had first option) in order to raise a family and retain the property in the dead man's name (see Lev. 25:25-55). Naomi, as Elimelich's widow wished to see this redemption process started, and reminds Boaz, through Ruth, that he is the "guardian-redeemer." He claims that in fact there is someone else who has first option, and challenges him the next day to act according on his responsibiity, but also reminds him that Ruth is part of the bargain - she is also needed to provide an heir to her deceased husband. The man refuses and says Boaz must now take the responsibility. He does.
Who does he pay? Presumably Naomi. But also according to custom she is brought under Boaz-Ruth's care, and all her property passes through her daughter in law Ruth to Boaz-Ruth's son (Obed, grandfather to David). So although Boaz pays Naomi for the estate (that includes Ruth), the money stays in the family and is passed on to his heirs. Indirectly therefore Boaz pays himself., as he and his family receive all the benfits. Another interesting detail in the story is that the women in the village say "Naomi has a son." In their eyes the boy is her son (and new guardian-redeemer) just as much as he is Ruth's.

 

[bling]

You can't have circumcision without blood.

The Jewish male each day looks down at the seal of the covenant he has with God, but there is no blood. Each day all day the Christian can know the indwelling Holy Spirit is with him and that like circumcision becomes a seal of the promises made.

The Spirit is our guarantee. WE are sealed by the Spirit:
Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Ephesians 4:30
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

OK, no blood.

It is not all kinds of knowledge... It was explicitly the "knowledge of good and evil." I ask myself the same question you asked ... how is that bad - especially as it was/is a quality that God Himself had? (Genesis 3:22). When Solomon asked for "a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong" God was pleased. And many passages in the NT urge believers to become discerning So there must have been another element in Adam and Eve's situation that lay behind the prohibition to eat the fruit of that tree. Some have suggested it was a matter of time and maturity. Who knows for sure? Their sin was not in wanting the knowledge of good and evil, but rather in doubting God's intentions and disobeying his command, ignoring his warning, and submitting to a serpent - as it appeared to them - over which they had been given dominion. In the context of two trees, one explicitly called the Tree of Life, and the other whose fruit was death, they chose the tree whose fruit was death, against the warning, advice, and command of God.
Another way of looking at it is that an "immature" knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, leads to absolutist decisions of what it "right" and what is "wrong" - i.e. the LAW. The correct understanding and application of the (spirit of the) law is good, but the literal imposition of the letter of the law leads to death (see Romans).

OK we agree “Knowledge” is not bad, so why would knowledge of good and evil be bad?

This is no small subject.

You said: “submitting to a serpent”, but they listened to what they wanted to hear, which the serpent was telling them, but that is not “submitting to the serpent (the serpent was not ordering them to eat)”.

Gen. 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it

That sure sounds like Eve was lusting after the fruit.

You say: “Their sin was not in wanting the knowledge of good and evil”, yet Gen. 3:6 says Eve: “desirable for gaining wisdom”, which seems like wanting knowledge?

Adam and Eve were given only one very obvious unquestionable (not like saying you can’t covet which is not easily visible to others) way to sin and that was the way they were going to sin.

Knowledge of Good and Evil provides tons of ways to sin, which we have now, so once we reach maturity we cannot go very long without sinning and we sin a lot (which helps us realize a huge need for God’s help (Charity)).

One of the things Adam and Eve learned and all of us can learn from the Garden scenario is the fact that the Garden was a lousy (impossible) place for humans to fulfill their objective.

Yes, but note what Hebrews 9: 18-20 says: "This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, ‘This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.' " This blood is not the same blood used in various other sacrifices for sins, for guilt, etc etc. It is blood sprinkled on the document itself, like the "insignia" or the "seal" of an authority.

Do not just stop with verse 20 since The writer goes on to explain:

Heb. 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood,

And in Hebrews 10:29 "How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? " In Jesus case, his blood is both the blood of the covenant, and equivalent to all the other blood sacrifices in the Old Covenant that were intended to appease and cleanse (even to give thanks!).

“Sanctification” was to cleanse and make Holy (set apart for God).

It is in this sense that the covenant, as a covenant, requires blood to be spillt to come into effect. Instead of being a written contract that is "signed and sealed" (I.e. stamped with a Seal that confirms the authority and right of the signer to sign) by the very blood (life) of Christ, to whom the Father had given all authority in heaven and on earth and under the earth. It wasn't a fake signature - it was "signed and sealed" in blood that bears the "DNA" of the Son of God.

I do not think God needs to: “confirms the authority and right of the signer to sign”, but we need to realize God fulfills all His promises since He has fulfilled His promise to give us His Spirit.

Christ’s blood is constantly being showered on us to keep us cleansed.

 

[bling]

We often use phrases "paid for" or "paid with" without a clear indication of who the payment was paid to.

A reckless driver may pay with his life for his recklessness on the road. Who does s/he pay to?

A rock climber may pay with his life for making a single bad decision, or losing his grip because of sweaty fingers, but who does he pay to? The "law of gravity," the hard and jagged rocks he falls on? And in what sense does gravity or the rocks benefit from this payment? God created the fundamental physical laws of the universe and the rocks. Does the climber indirectly pay God? Do we even hold God responsible (and therefore liable)? Of course not.

All the men and women who join the military and go to fight for whatever purpose or "side" may "pay the ultimate price," but to whom do they pay this? the people or cause they are fighting for, or the people or cause they are fighting against? Satan, who uses various means to cause enimity and war? or God, whom we say "is in control - still on the throne?"

Or the parent who pays with his/her life saving their child from drowning? The cost is very high - life itself, but the parent is willing to pay it. But to whom does such a person pay?

Perhaps it is similar with the death of Jesus? He paid with his life, but is it necessary to identify to whom he paid? It was a sacrifice, a giving up of something. We are told to "deny ourselves, take up our cross daily, and follow Jesus." Give up our self-centred desires, take up our cross. These things can be "costly" - there may be things we pay (reputation among friends and colleagues, some of our "hard earned money," etc.) - i.e. it is hard. And IF we do it out of love as an act of following Jesus, we get great benefits. IF we don't do it out of love, according to 1 Cor 13, it is of no benefit to us. In this case, we "pay" much for nothing. In the first case we "pay a cost", but get benefit. But to whom do we "pay" this cost? We are to submit ourselves as "living sacrifices" to God, but is this in any way a payment to God in the same way as paying the restaurant for the meal we consume there? In reality everything (including our life itself) we have and are already belongs to Him - so how can anything we do be a payment by us to Him?

OK, I will discuss this with you:

The consequences of bad choices could be referred to as “payments” like the prodigal son who made lots of bad choices and ended up needing to pay the piper, accept the fair/just required payment for his bad choices. God has set the “price” very high for making wrong choices, those bad choices create a huge debt to God for (a debt we cannot pay), but God can forgive that unbelievable huge debt owed Him if we will just humbly accept His forgiveness as pure undeserved charity.

We should not tempt God by being reckless with our lives, our life is not our own, but we have turned everything over to Him out of gratitude (Godly type Love), so we need to do what He wants us to do. Yes, God wants us to save lives, but even more important is to save souls.

What is motivating the soldier, the rescuer, the drunk driver, and the parent?

Christ offered His life as a ransom payment for everyone and yes it is important to know who He is offering this huge ransom to, since it is not a ransom scenario if there is no kidnapper and Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all describe it as a huge sacrificial payment made by the Father to set the child free to enter the Kingdom (a kidnapping scenario).

The kidnapper would be undeserving of the payment, holding the child back, so it could not be God?

Satan cannot be the kidnapper since we freely joined satan, so God does not owe satan anything and God can easily and safely take anything away from satan, making it wrong to pay satan.

So, who is being offered the ransom payment of Jesus and Jesus tortured, humiliated and murdered?

Let me ask you this: When you talk with a nonbelieving sinner are you trying to sell him/her on some book, some doctrine, some life style, and some philosophical idea OR are you trying to get the sinner to accept “Jesus Christ and Him crucified”, which is described as the ransom payment?

If the sinner accepts “Jesus Christ and Him crucified”, does a child of God enter the Kingdom?

If the sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him crucified”, is a child of God kept out of the Kingdom?

Does that sound like a ransom/kidnap scenario?

Is the Child which enters the kingdom and unbelieving sinner or a new person?

 

[bling]

Another thought on redemption ... to whom was the payment made?

In the story of Ruth, and the "redemption" of Elimelech's property:
Elimelech was Naomi husband. He owned property in Israel, and it remained his even when he emigrated with his family to Moab. Ruth was his daughter in law. It is probable that he made some kind of payment to her family when his son married her. In that economic sense she "belonged" to his family. Both father and son died. Naomi decides to return to Bethlehem, and Ruch determines to go with her.
According to Israelite custom instituted through the laws of Moses (given by God), since there were no (male) heirs, the estate should be "redeemed" by a close relative (and there was a specified order regarding who had first option) in order to raise a family and retain the property in the dead man's name (see Lev. 25:25-55). Naomi, as Elimelich's widow wished to see this redemption process started, and reminds Boaz, through Ruth, that he is the "guardian-redeemer." He claims that in fact there is someone else who has first option, and challenges him the next day to act according on his responsibiity, but also reminds him that Ruth is part of the bargain - she is also needed to provide an heir to her deceased husband. The man refuses and says Boaz must now take the responsibility. He does.
Who does he pay? Presumably Naomi. But also according to custom she is brought under Boaz-Ruth's care, and all her property passes through her daughter in law Ruth to Boaz-Ruth's son (Obed, grandfather to David). So although Boaz pays Naomi for the estate (that includes Ruth), the money stays in the family and is passed on to his heirs. Indirectly therefore Boaz pays himself., as he and his family receive all the benfits. Another interesting detail in the story is that the women in the village say "Naomi has a son." In their eyes the boy is her son (and new guardian-redeemer) just as much as he is Ruth's.

Read my post 24