Ransom

[d taylor]

God is not only willing and able to forgive everyone's sins, but he has forgiven everyone's sins, like He did for the unmerciful servant Matt. 18, yet forgiveness has not taken place for everyone.

Matt. 18: 21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

Peter asks a good question and seems generous by providing his take on the answer of “is it seven times”, since three times is the Old Testament was given.

Christ makes a huge change by saying 77 times (virtually saying: “always”), so it is important to try to put yourself in their shoes hearing this idea for the first time, do you think the disciples would be thinking: “How is this change going to impact my life”, this is normal people’s thinking with new information. So will they will go on to think “How can I keep from being taken advantage of by brothers and sisters?”

We know from all other previous encounters: Jesus knowing their thinking, so He will address in a parable their problem with His previous answer, by giving them the true definition for “forgiveness”.



First off: This debt is totally unbelievably huge, no one has that kind of money to lend, no one could get into anywhere near this kind of “debt”, and there was no way to make that kind of payment. It is actually hard to believe one person could even spend this much money in a life time in the first century.

Matt 18:25 “Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered…” Here we know the Master knew there is no way to pay this debt and this servant entrusted with such a huge responsibility would also realize he could never pay it back.

Matt 18: 26 “…‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’” This servant is not asking for unconditional forgiveness, but “more time”, with the promise of paying it back in full, but the Master is not an idiot, the Master just previously said there is no way to pay this debt, and since this servant has been entrusted with and spent already 10,000 talents, he knows he cannot earn that amount. The servant is lying to the Master and maybe lying to himself.

This might be a good example of “hearing what you want to hear and not what was said”. How could this wise enough servant to be trusted with such a huge amount, believe the Master would just forgive and forget? When the Master: canceled (forgave) the debt and let him go, what did the servant “hear” (think) and possibly believe: “Oh the Master accepted my offer”, “I got time”, “I did OK”, “The Master does not care about the money”, or “the master must really like me”?

Luke 7: 36-50. Christ teaches us this truism: “He that is forgiven much Loves much” so Godly type Love would come automatically if a person was forgiven of an unbelievable huge Debt meaning he will automatically receiving an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love), so how is it possible for this “forgiven” servant to not Love one of the Master’s servants and treat him graciously?

Matt. 18: 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. There is no other debt mentioned, so this debt has to be referring to the debt the Master forgave, but if the debt is unconditionally forgiven how can the Master talk about the servant needing to pay it back in full, since it is a forgiven debt?

If we take all these Biblical truisms and allow them to define “Forgiveness” instead of taking our definition of forgiveness and force us to make an acceptation for God (Allow God to mislead us (lie)) Deity’s definition will resolve these apparent Biblical contradictions.

There is more to our having God’s forgiveness, than God just unconditional forgiving us, but this “more” will not mean God’s forgiving is conditional.

The “conditional” part for the potential receiver of forgiveness is found in completing the definition of forgiveness and not in the part the forgiver plays (God).

In order to complete the definition of Biblical forgiveness the person being forgiven has to humble accept that forgiveness as pure, undeserved charity.

The unmerciful servant did not humbly accept the Master’s unconditional forgiving as pure undeserved charity, so the transaction of forgiveness was not completed. We know this because he did not Love much and he still owes the money.

Again, it is not the Master taking His unconditional forgiveness back, but forgiveness itself, by definition did not happen.

How does this explanation address the question: “How can I keep from being taken advantage of by brothers and sisters?”

-
​

Man (Adam) sinned man, became separated from the life of God. God stated the payment for mans sin is blood. Man now having his blood affected by sin could do nothing to restore man back to the life of God.

So God promised to set up the way man can be restored back to God. First sin need to be paid for, God promised to pay the debt for sin. But until God could pay the debt, God set up a temporarily system that man could have forgiveness for his sins he commits. So man again could have fellowship with God, so God set up the sacrificial system

From Got Questions
There are five main types of sacrifices, or offerings, in the Old Testament. The burnt offering (Leviticus 1; 6:8–13; 8:18-21; 16:24), the grain offering (Leviticus 2; 6:14–23), the peace offering (Leviticus 3; 7:11–34), the sin offering (Leviticus 4; 5:1–13; 6:24–30; 8:14–17; 16:3–22), and the trespass offering (Leviticus 5:14–19; 6:1–7; 7:1–6). Each of these sacrifices involved certain elements, either animal or fruit of the field, and had a specific purpose. Most were split into two or three portions—God’s portion, the portion for the Levites or priests, and, if there was a third, a portion kept by the person offering the sacrifice. The sacrifices can be broadly categorized as either voluntary or mandatory offerings.

But God came and became human in the flesh and died on the cross. Doing this God was able to die and pay the price God set for mans sin. So now the part of sin in man's separation from God has been paid for once and for all, permanently.

So now man has no sin barrier keeping him from God. But man is still separated from the Life of God. Because God states that for man to be restored back to the life of God. Man (humanity) must believe in The Man who took away the sin of the world, to receive God's free gift of His Life.

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

 

[bling]

-
​

Man (Adam) sinned man, became separated from the life of God. God stated the payment for mans sin is blood. Man now having his blood affected by sin could do nothing to restore man back to the life of God.

So God promised to set up the way man can be restored back to God. First sin need to be paid for, God promised to pay the debt for sin. But until God could pay the debt, God set up a temporarily system that man could have forgiveness for his sins he commits. So man again could have fellowship with God, so God set up the sacrificial system

God never stated but you are saying God said: “blood is the payment for sin” nor “God promised to pay the debt for sin’.

Hebrews 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Blood was used for cleansing and making Holy, not as payment.

The “temporary” system, under the Old Law had no way to atone for sins of rebellious disobedience, just minor sins.

From Got Questions
There are five main types of sacrifices, or offerings, in the Old Testament. The burnt offering (Leviticus 1; 6:8–13; 8:18-21; 16:24), the grain offering (Leviticus 2; 6:14–23), the peace offering (Leviticus 3; 7:11–34), the sin offering (Leviticus 4; 5:1–13; 6:24–30; 8:14–17; 16:3–22), and the trespass offering (Leviticus 5:14–19; 6:1–7; 7:1–6). Each of these sacrifices involved certain elements, either animal or fruit of the field, and had a specific purpose. Most were split into two or three portions—God’s portion, the portion for the Levites or priests, and, if there was a third, a portion kept by the person offering the sacrifice. The sacrifices can be broadly categorized as either voluntary or mandatory offerings.

But God came and became human in the flesh and died on the cross. Doing this God was able to die and pay the price God set for mans sin. So now the part of sin in man's separation from God has been paid for once and for all, permanently.

So now man has no sin barrier keeping him from God. But man is still separated from the Life of God. Because God states that for man to be restored back to the life of God. Man (humanity) must believe in The Man who took away the sin of the world, to receive God's free gift of His Life.

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

We can go through all the sacrifices, but the closes to what Christ did for all sins even the most rebellious, would be to look at Lev. 5, since atonement is given the individual personally:

Those “sacrifices” did nothing for God, but they really taught and helped humans.



Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.



We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 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; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.



Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).



The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.



Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.



Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.



Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).



Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.



We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

 

[timothyu]

Or they could cut off a hand.

They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing.

 

[d taylor]

God never stated but you are saying God said: “blood is the payment for sin” nor “God promised to pay the debt for sin’.

Hebrews 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Blood was used for cleansing and making Holy, not as payment.

The “temporary” system, under the Old Law had no way to atone for sins of rebellious disobedience, just minor sins.

We can go through all the sacrifices, but the closes to what Christ did for all sins even the most rebellious, would be to look at Lev. 5, since atonement is given the individual personally:

Those “sacrifices” did nothing for God, but they really taught and helped humans.



Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.



We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 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; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.



Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).



The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.



Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.



Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.



Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).



Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.



We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

-
​

Adam/ Eve tried to cover their sin but it was bloodless and was rejected by God. God made covering for Adam and Eve by killing an animal and clothed Adam and Eve.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Some propose a theory of atonement that involves the payment of a ransom. Holy scripture uses the word 'ransom' in connection with Christ's death. What is your opinion about it?

(Matthew 20:28 KJV) Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

(Mark 10:45 KJV) For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

(1 Timothy 2:6 KJV) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

The language of ransom was taken up in the fathers as a way to speak of how Christ has conquered the powers and principalities. Biblically, the clearest expression of ransom language is probably Hebrews 2:14-15 which speaks of how Christ has defeated the one who wields the power of death, that through fear of death all are held in captivity, slavery--namely the devil. Christ, therefore, in becoming what we are and sharing in our death He breaks the devil's power, the ransom is paid, the captives are freed, the tyrant who held us captive has been defeated, the power, the threats, and the fear wielded to subdue us has been undone--Christ is risen, and the captives are free.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

What was it then? If Christ did not atone for your sins, then God's wrath remains on you.

Not all Christians agree on the specifics of Atonement language. What Xeno is disagreeing with is Penal Substitution Theory--a view that is, by and large, a product of the Reformed tradition of Protestantism.

Xeno believes Christ made atonement, what he disagrees with is the specific language of Penal Substitution theory.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are you unaware of Christ's payment, ransom to the justice of God, to buy us back from his condemnation on sin?

That sounds like Jesus saving us from God, with God as the tyrant who holds men captive.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

The language of ransom was taken up in the fathers as a way to speak of how Christ has conquered the powers and principalities. Biblically, the clearest expression of ransom language is probably Hebrews 2:14-15 which speaks of how Christ has defeated the one who wields the power of death, that through fear of death all are held in captivity, slavery--namely the devil. Christ, therefore, in becoming what we are and sharing in our death He breaks the devil's power, the ransom is paid, the captives are freed, the tyrant who held us captive has been defeated, the power, the threats, and the fear wielded to subdue us has been undone--Christ is risen, and the captives are free.

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed. I believe it is importanT that we insist in all of this however that the ransom was not paid to anyone in particular; it was not paid to the Father, since Jesus Christ is one with the Father, specifically coessential, and for one person of the Holy Trinity to suffer for the gain of one other person of the Holy Trinity violates the principle that the divine wills of the three persons are in complete alignment, and that the three persons of the Trinity abide in a union of perfect love which we are called to iconographically represent.

Likewise we must also insist that the ransom was not paid to the devil, for the devil has no rights and at no time has God owed the devil anything.

Finally, I believe it is important to insist that the sacrifice of Christ our True God on the Cross was voluntary. It was necessary for our salvation, which Christ desired - the conversation He had with the Father in the Garden of Gesthemane was clearly a natural human reaction to the horrible tortures He was about to endure, “Is there no other way these people can be saved?” is the implied subtext.

To quote the Triodion, the Orthodox hymnal and service book used during the Great Lent and Holy Week,

“By Thine own free choice, O compassionate Christ, Thou hast endured a shameful death upon the Cross; and when Thy Mother saw Thee, she was wounded in her heart. At her prayers, O Lord alone supreme in love, through Thy tender mercy have pity on the world and save it, for Thou dost take away its sin.”

 

[The Liturgist]

That sounds like Jesus saving us from God, with God as the tyrant who holds men captive.

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed, it does, and that image, of God the Father demanding the torment of His only begotten Son in order to release us from damnation, is extremely unhealthy for the Christian Church - it has been exploited by atheists who blasphemously accuse the Father of being the ultimate child abuser, and ignore that all three persons of the Trinity are long-suffering and infinitely loving. When God became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son and Word of God, it was His choice, and something done in order to save us from the consequences of our own sin, which the Father had already ameliorated as much as possible (for example, capping the human lifespan at 120 years minimized the amount of pain we had to endure in this life due to sin - one cannot imagine the suffering of Noah or Methuselah living for such an extended period. To fully deliver us however, He had to defeat death itself and show us what it means to be human, recreating us in His image and glorifying us, enabling us to become by grace what Christ is by nature.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Are you unaware of Christ's payment, ransom to the justice of God, to buy us back from his condemnation on sin?

That sounds like Jesus saving us from God, with God as the tyrant who holds men captive.

-CryptoLutheran

Nothing said in Scripture who the ransom is paid to. Satan? God? Both have real problems. I am just silent on this issue. Not all passages of Scripture have to be reconciled....clearly leads sometimes to eisigesis.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Not all Christians agree on the specifics of Atonement language. What Xeno is disagreeing with is Penal Substitution Theory--a view that is, by and large, a product of the Reformed tradition of Protestantism.

Lutherans clearly believe in vicarious satisfaction via Biblical words of ransom, reconciliation, and redemption (AC III.2b-3, AC IV.2-3, AC XXIV.24-27, Ap IV.53, Ap V.57-58, Ap V.101 et. al.) PST is just a synonym for the concept.... and the concept is certianly not of the Reformed tradition. I have no problem with either label.

 

[timothyu]

He breaks the devil's power, the ransom is paid,

Paid to who? If the Adversary was holding us hostage then it would seem the Adversary was paid off to let the hostages go.

Consider how the Christ is compared to a sacrificial lamb. This crucifixion was at the time of Passover so the significance being it was related. At the time of the original Passover in Egypt, a lamb was sacrificed so the blood may be spread over the doorway so that death may pass over. No ransom involved. Now this Lamb of God was sacrificed, no ransom involved, but the same event occurred. His blood spread over the world and eternal death would pass over those of the Kingdom. Everything hinges on the Kingdom, not the wisdom of man and especially their institutions, both secular and religious, wanting to make their own interpretations so they can justify their own actions and deem themselves saved..

 

[ViaCrucis]

Lutherans clearly believe in vicarious satisfaction via Biblical words of ransom, reconciliation, and redemption (AC III.2b-3, AC IV.2-3, AC XXIV.24-27, Ap IV.53, Ap V.57-58, Ap V.101 et. al.) PST is just a synonym for the concept.... and the concept is certianly not of the Reformed tradition. I have no problem with either label.

Something I have noticed in the course of my own life's experience, is that the way the Atonement is described within a Lutheran context is different than the way the Atonement was described in my pre-Lutheran years. Even if both speak of Christ bearing the Divine Wrath in our stead, there is a difference that I believe makes a huge difference.

To provide an example of this, when I was in high school I partook of a Bible study with a group of mostly adults from my church. The one leading the Bible study would speak of Jesus as holding His Father back from trying to punish us. As though there were a disagreement, a difference in wills between Father and Son (the obvious Trinitarian issue in this is obvious). And that kind of language was normal, the Father was full of wrath, angry, and compelled by justice to punish the wicked--but Jesus steps in the way, holds the Father back, and takes the beating for us. Because the language was that God was angry, and the language used to describe God often bordered on describing God in such a way that, were we talking about a human parent, would be classified as abusive. God wants to hurt you, God wants to send you to hell; but Jesus gets in the way, stops His Father from doing that, and becomes the cosmic whipping boy.

To further clarify this, I once met someone--granted this was online--whose argument was that because of Jesus the only reason God doesn't send us to hell is because God's hands are tied by a contract. Salvation was described as a contract which bound God so that He had to save us even though He didn't want to, He wants to punish us, but can't, because of Jesus.

This was very frequently the way I experienced Penal Substitution Theory growing up. And, I think you'd agree, that's certainly not what the Confessions say.

Penal Substitution means very different things depending on who is describing it. And outside of good Christian theology about the Trinity, about who God is and is revealed through Jesus, about what the nature of wrath is (etc), what can get said is pretty bad.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bling]

Or they could cut off a hand.

These are virtually accidental sins or unintentional sins, so hand cutting seems drastic.

 

[bling]

-
​

Adam/ Eve tried to cover their sin but it was bloodless and was rejected by God. God made covering for Adam and Eve by killing an animal and clothed Adam and Eve.

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

 

[Clare73]

God never stated but you are saying God said: “blood is the payment for sin” nor “God promised to pay the debt for sin’.

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

Hebrews 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Blood was used for cleansing and making Holy, not as payment.

Atonement is payment.

The “temporary” system, under the Old Law had no way to atone for sins of rebellious disobedience, just minor sins.
We can go through all the sacrifices, but the closes to what Christ did for all sins even the most rebellious, would be to look at Lev. 5, since atonement is given the individual personally:
Those “sacrifices” did nothing for God, but they really taught and helped humans.
Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.
We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 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; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.
Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).
The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

Penalty is payment.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.
Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).
Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

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

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

 

[Clare73]

That sounds like Jesus saving us from God, with God as the tyrant who holds men captive.

-CryptoLutheran

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

 

[Clare73]

Nothing said in Scripture who the ransom is paid to. Satan? God? Both have real problems. I am just silent on this issue. Not all passages of Scripture have to be reconciled....clearly leads sometimes to eisigesis.

By its nature, justice requires penalty for its violation.

The ransom is paid to God's justice, just as the sentence of execution is paid to our law's justice.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Something I have noticed in the course of my own life's experience, is that the way the Atonement is described within a Lutheran context is different than the way the Atonement was described in my pre-Lutheran years. Even if both speak of Christ bearing the Divine Wrath in our stead, there is a difference that I believe makes a huge difference.

To provide an example of this, when I was in high school I partook of a Bible study with a group of mostly adults from my church. The one leading the Bible study would speak of Jesus as holding His Father back from trying to punish us. As though there were a disagreement, a difference in wills between Father and Son (the obvious Trinitarian issue in this is obvious). And that kind of language was normal, the Father was full of wrath, angry, and compelled by justice to punish the wicked--but Jesus steps in the way, holds the Father back, and takes the beating for us. Because the language was that God was angry, and the language used to describe God often bordered on describing God in such a way that, were we talking about a human parent, would be classified as abusive. God wants to hurt you, God wants to send you to hell; but Jesus gets in the way, stops His Father from doing that, and becomes the cosmic whipping boy.

To further clarify this, I once met someone--granted this was online--whose argument was that because of Jesus the only reason God doesn't send us to hell is because God's hands are tied by a contract. Salvation was described as a contract which bound God so that He had to save us even though He didn't want to, He wants to punish us, but can't, because of Jesus.

This was very frequently the way I experienced Penal Substitution Theory growing up. And, I think you'd agree, that's certainly not what the Confessions say.

Penal Substitution means very different things depending on who is describing it. And outside of good Christian theology about the Trinity, about who God is and is revealed through Jesus, about what the nature of wrath is (etc), what can get said is pretty bad.

-CryptoLutheran

I react heavily against social trinitarianism and trithesim which of course is the modern progressivism.

Social Trinitarism has its impetus with Jurgen Moltman's influential book, Theology of Hope. Like Barth, he criticizes liberalism and then posits the thought for the Trinity to make sense one must think in terms of human analogies. Progressives built up this belief of his, and used all sorts of human analogies....seeing God as the cosmic child abuser. And this of course has led to Tritheism, where the Father's will is different than the Son's will.

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

A pet peeve of mine is the word "theory" in PST. No...it is found in Scripture as should be seen as one of three models of the Atonement presented in the NT along side of Chritus Victor and the Mystical Union passages such as II Peter 1:4 "partakers of the Divine nature," John 15:4 "Abide in me, and I in you," Col 1:27 "Christ in you , the hope of glory."

As the word "atonement" is not found in the NT, three words describe it well....and all economic terms....Redemption, Reconciliation and Ransom. Sometimes, Scriptures just presents a just a single word in a verse, sometimes two or more terms are found in a pericope, and sometimes words such as adoption, heir and inheritance in interspersed within these three words to give us rich understanding of benefits of vicarious satisfaction.

Jordan Cooper recommended Junius Remensnyder (Lutheran) excellent work The Atonement and Modern Thought....written over a hundred years ago and republished by Just and Sinner. An excellent short book....which I used to teach a class at church on it 2023. Well worth the read as it adds so much to our understanding of the Atonement. Certainly, there is no distinction between Reformed and Lutheran thought here, as Benjamin B. Warfield wrote the Preface.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The ransom is paid to God's justice, just as the sentence of execution is paid to our law's justice.

How can a ransom be paid to an attribute?

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

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