[SIZE=medium]Part of the reason for the cross being a stumbling block to the nonbeliever is the poor answer we give to this question.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Is the reason preachers do not preach more on the cross have to do with a lack of understanding of the answer to this question?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Is the analogy for what Christ did on the cross best explained with a ransom and if so, does that mean the ransom theory of atonement is correct?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The ransom analogy is used in:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Matthew 20:28 even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (RSV Christ talking)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] 1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time. (RSV Paul talking)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]1 Peter 1:18 You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, (RSV Peter talking)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Revelation 5:9 and they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, (RSV John talking)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (NIV Hebrew writer) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Whatever “Theory of Atonement” we agree on it will have to fit the analogy of a ransom.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Since “ransom” is used; the context is all important for understanding the meaning of the word for the people being addressed, since that is whom the authors are trying to communicate with (not with us directly). How was the word being used in the first century Palestine area? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Julius Caesar in his younger years was captured by pirates and a ransom was paid for his release. Other similar examples around the first century are given of wealthy people being held for a ransom. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]“Although during the period of internecine Greek wars the ransoming of prisoners was not uncommon…” From Oxford Companion to Military History.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Ransom seems to mean: “payment made to an undeserving party (kidnapper) in exchange for release and return of family members or freinds.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]All the popular theories of atonement seem to agree on the following:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The Ransom Theory of Atonement has satan receiving the payment: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]This would fit the idea of being an “unworthy” but there is no “legal” obligation for God to have to pay satan, even if that was the “common practice” of the first and second century. It is not, just nor fair to pay a kidnapper if you do not have to, in order to safely release your children and God could certainly see to the safe release of his children without paying satan. If God is paying satan it elevates satan or degrades God to be on equal level with satan. Most significantly Jesus is not portrayed as going to the cross for satan and if his going to the cross is a ransom payment to satan it should be described just that way. Christ going to the cross is described as being because of us and for us and not because of satan.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The Penal Substitution Theory of atonement and some other theories have the payment being made to God:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]This makes what Christ did on the cross out to be a payment like a fine, punishment for the crime or judgment, which is just/fair retribution for an offence and not really a “ransom” payment. Why would God need to pay Himself and why with Christ’s blood? (This makes God out to be almost blood thirty.) This is often explained as being something God needs in order to forgive man, but why would a Father have satisfy a “need” to forgive His children? What value or benefit would Christ torturous death on the cross have for God? This also leaves man out of the cause for Christ going to the cross and puts the responsibility for Christ going to the cross on God, to resolve a “problem” God is having. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Some theories have the payment being made to death, sin, evil, the grave or hell:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]This personifies an intangible to the point of needing to be paid off? Christ is victorious over evil, death, sin and hell, but is that more with Christ’s resurrection and not with Christ’s death? What value or benefit do these “things” get out of Christ’s torturous death? Why make such a payment?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The moral influence theory of atonement presents Christ’s “ransom” payment as more an example for us and along with other theories does not have the ransom being paid to anyone. The use of the word “ransom” is more just a figure of speech:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Christ going to the cross is a huge example of Love and obedience, but scripture says it is much more than just a good example. Being a ransom would communicate more to those of the first century than just a nice figure of speech. The Bible does not present Christ’s going to the cross as just an example.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Tell me this: Who is the kidnapper that snuck in on the younger son, dragged him away from his loving father and held him from the Love of his father in a pigsty (Luke 15: 11-32)? Does the blame for this “kidnapping” go on satan, sin, God or do we blame the young son himself? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Again, who holds the unbeliever in his unbelieving state? Who keeps the unbeliever away from the showering of gifts His father wants to pore upon him? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Whoever this person is, would be our kidnapper. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]What “value or benefit” would the cruel torture and murder of Christ have for the unbeliever that would help that unbeliever to become a believer?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Look at Acts 2, beginning with verse 41 and the result of 3000 unbelievers becoming believers in response to Peter’s call of Acts 2: 38. Tell me this would Peter have gotten the response to Acts 2:38 without first getting the response of Acts 2: 37?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]In Acts 2 :37 the people had a death blow to their heart and with their last breath asked “what can we do?”, so what caused them to have this death blow? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]If Christ had died of heatstroke while entering Jerusalem and still rose three days later would the people have had that death blow to their hearts on Pentecost? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Peter tells them: “…you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” and “…this Jesus whom you crucified.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] So did the previous actions of torturing, humiliating and murdering of Christ help in the conversion of those three thousand on the day of Pentecost? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Would Christ have gone through this murder for just their benefit (to help in their conversion)?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]What about me today, do I get any benefit from Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]If there is any substitution involved does the crowd yelling: “crucify him” stand in for me?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]How personal should it be for me and what was said to make it very personal? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]I will stop there for now. [/SIZE]
t
[SIZE=medium]Is the reason preachers do not preach more on the cross have to do with a lack of understanding of the answer to this question?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Is the analogy for what Christ did on the cross best explained with a ransom and if so, does that mean the ransom theory of atonement is correct?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The ransom analogy is used in:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Matthew 20:28 even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (RSV Christ talking)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] 1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time. (RSV Paul talking)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]1 Peter 1:18 You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, (RSV Peter talking)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Revelation 5:9 and they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, (RSV John talking)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (NIV Hebrew writer) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Whatever “Theory of Atonement” we agree on it will have to fit the analogy of a ransom.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Since “ransom” is used; the context is all important for understanding the meaning of the word for the people being addressed, since that is whom the authors are trying to communicate with (not with us directly). How was the word being used in the first century Palestine area? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Julius Caesar in his younger years was captured by pirates and a ransom was paid for his release. Other similar examples around the first century are given of wealthy people being held for a ransom. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]“Although during the period of internecine Greek wars the ransoming of prisoners was not uncommon…” From Oxford Companion to Military History.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Ransom seems to mean: “payment made to an undeserving party (kidnapper) in exchange for release and return of family members or freinds.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]All the popular theories of atonement seem to agree on the following:[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=medium]The ransom was paid by God and/or Christ.[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=medium]Christ cruel torture, humiliation and death (murder) on the cross is the payment.[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=medium]God’s children are the ones being ransomed and released (this may include all humans or just the “elect”). [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The Ransom Theory of Atonement has satan receiving the payment: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]This would fit the idea of being an “unworthy” but there is no “legal” obligation for God to have to pay satan, even if that was the “common practice” of the first and second century. It is not, just nor fair to pay a kidnapper if you do not have to, in order to safely release your children and God could certainly see to the safe release of his children without paying satan. If God is paying satan it elevates satan or degrades God to be on equal level with satan. Most significantly Jesus is not portrayed as going to the cross for satan and if his going to the cross is a ransom payment to satan it should be described just that way. Christ going to the cross is described as being because of us and for us and not because of satan.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The Penal Substitution Theory of atonement and some other theories have the payment being made to God:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]This makes what Christ did on the cross out to be a payment like a fine, punishment for the crime or judgment, which is just/fair retribution for an offence and not really a “ransom” payment. Why would God need to pay Himself and why with Christ’s blood? (This makes God out to be almost blood thirty.) This is often explained as being something God needs in order to forgive man, but why would a Father have satisfy a “need” to forgive His children? What value or benefit would Christ torturous death on the cross have for God? This also leaves man out of the cause for Christ going to the cross and puts the responsibility for Christ going to the cross on God, to resolve a “problem” God is having. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Some theories have the payment being made to death, sin, evil, the grave or hell:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]This personifies an intangible to the point of needing to be paid off? Christ is victorious over evil, death, sin and hell, but is that more with Christ’s resurrection and not with Christ’s death? What value or benefit do these “things” get out of Christ’s torturous death? Why make such a payment?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The moral influence theory of atonement presents Christ’s “ransom” payment as more an example for us and along with other theories does not have the ransom being paid to anyone. The use of the word “ransom” is more just a figure of speech:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Christ going to the cross is a huge example of Love and obedience, but scripture says it is much more than just a good example. Being a ransom would communicate more to those of the first century than just a nice figure of speech. The Bible does not present Christ’s going to the cross as just an example.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Tell me this: Who is the kidnapper that snuck in on the younger son, dragged him away from his loving father and held him from the Love of his father in a pigsty (Luke 15: 11-32)? Does the blame for this “kidnapping” go on satan, sin, God or do we blame the young son himself? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Again, who holds the unbeliever in his unbelieving state? Who keeps the unbeliever away from the showering of gifts His father wants to pore upon him? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Whoever this person is, would be our kidnapper. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]What “value or benefit” would the cruel torture and murder of Christ have for the unbeliever that would help that unbeliever to become a believer?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Look at Acts 2, beginning with verse 41 and the result of 3000 unbelievers becoming believers in response to Peter’s call of Acts 2: 38. Tell me this would Peter have gotten the response to Acts 2:38 without first getting the response of Acts 2: 37?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]In Acts 2 :37 the people had a death blow to their heart and with their last breath asked “what can we do?”, so what caused them to have this death blow? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]If Christ had died of heatstroke while entering Jerusalem and still rose three days later would the people have had that death blow to their hearts on Pentecost? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Peter tells them: “…you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” and “…this Jesus whom you crucified.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] So did the previous actions of torturing, humiliating and murdering of Christ help in the conversion of those three thousand on the day of Pentecost? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Would Christ have gone through this murder for just their benefit (to help in their conversion)?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]What about me today, do I get any benefit from Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]If there is any substitution involved does the crowd yelling: “crucify him” stand in for me?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]How personal should it be for me and what was said to make it very personal? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]I will stop there for now. [/SIZE]
t