No Deal with the Devil: Christ's Ransom and the Justice of God

[Arial]

“Once bitten, twice shy.”

I have been accused of heresy and banned from sites for claiming that I cannot locate a verse that supports the transfer of wrath (ever), so I am a bit gun shy and defensive on the topic.

You intended to present “your POV” and I saw “another correction of my bad/wrong POV”.
Sorry.

Perception. It usually rules the day whether the perception fits the facts or not.

I have had the same experience you mention for being Reformed. Opponents to the theology can be brutal.

 

[atpollard]

Except he didn't sin. Why did he suffer the penalty for something of which he was not guilty?

That is the job description of the High Priest offering Himself (Hebrews 2-9) as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29) … [note there is no mention of transferred wrath in the job description].

 

[atpollard]

How is he the substitute without imputation? How did he stand in our place if our sin and guilt was not imputed to him?

Where is the SCRIPTURE where God tells us of this transfer of wrath? How am I to know it is “of God” and not a man made doctrine (like the perpetual virginity and be blessed assumption of Mary)?

Logic is good, but Scripture is better.

 

[Arial]

That is the job description of the High Priest offering Himself (Hebrews 2-9) as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29) … [note there is no mention of transferred wrath in the job description].

No there isn't but there was substitutionary penalty. The innocent animal died in the place of the sinner. Jesus was both the sacrifice and the High Priest. The OT high priest did not offer himself (and no, I don't think that is what you are saying but if it was a metaphor at least in the way you worded it, it would be a mixed metaphor.) The high priest was the mediator of the covenant---just as Jesus is of the New.

 

[atpollard]

Not where the innocent chooses to do so.
Nothing forbids me to pay my nephew's fine up at the Courthouse.

Romans 5:6-11 [NLT]
6 When we were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners. 7 Now, most people would not be willing to die for an upright person, though someone might perhaps be willing to die for a person who is especially good. 8 But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners. 9 And since we have been made right in God's sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God's condemnation. 10 For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son. 11 So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God.

Note that Christ willingly chose to DIE for us, and in doing so made us RIGHT WITH GOD. It was Jesus’ DEATH that restored our friendship with God.

What it does not mention is God’s anger or punishment for us transferred to Jesus.
What it does not mention is the wrath of the Father (or anyone in these verses) poured on the Son.
What it does not mention is some DIVINE SCALE OF JUSTICE that demands balancing (for God’s essence).
There is a gift of LOVE, death, by the Christ to restore the guilty to the Father.

 

[makesends]

False dichotomy. You could have neither lied nor spoken the truth—that is, spoken falsehood in error. That makes you mistaken, not a liar.

Sorry. Couldn't keep silent on this. A certain mentality seems to think it has to be one or the other, and never understands that mistake is neither. There is also misspeak, not to mention misunderstand what was spoken. I lived with someone of that mentality for 40 years, and if I have my way, it will never happen again.

 

[John Bauer]

That is the job description of the High Priest offering himself (Hebrews 2-9) as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

You will need to be more specific. It is not immediately obvious how eight contiguous chapters of Hebrews answers my question.

Jesus did not sin, so why did he suffer the penalty for something of which he was not guilty? Penal substitutionary atonement can answer that question.

Does Christus Victor answer that question? If so, how? If not, what does?

How is he the substitute without imputation? How did he stand in our place if our sin and guilt was not imputed to him?

Where is the SCRIPTURE where God tells us of this transfer of wrath? How am I to know it is “of God” and not a man-made doctrine (like the perpetual virginity and be blessed assumption of Mary)?

Logic is good, but scripture is better.

How does that answer my question?

"It doesn't."

Exactly.

 

[atpollard]

John,
If you really want me to engage directly with you in a discussion of your area of expertise, then at least allow me to choose the question to discuss. I have no interest in suffering an inquisition on my views of every aspect of the Atonement when I question one small aspect of the popular PSA theory.

You stated:

Finally, Scripture says it was to God that Jesus paid the price, for it was his holy justice that demanded a ransom. [8]

In support, you offered:

[8] Ephesians 5:2; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Romans 3:25-26; Isaiah 53:4, 6, 10; 1 Peter 2:22-24; Hebrews 2:10.

• Ephesians 5:2 [ESV] And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
• 1 John 2:2 [ESV] He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
• 1 John 4:10 [ESV] In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
• Romans 3:25-26 [ESV] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
• Isaiah 53:4, 6, 10 [ESV] 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. ... 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned--every one--to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. ... 10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
• 1 Peter 2:22-24 [ESV] He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
• Hebrews 2:10 [ESV] For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.

What I observe in these verses is nothing close to a statement that “his holy Justice demanded a ransom”.
So, why have we reached into eisegetical definitions of “propitiation” to construct a doctrine rather than using the words that God provided in Scripture?

The transfer of wrath comes from a need of “Justice” and a meaning of “propitiation” not explicit in Scripture.
Yet I am the villain for pointing to the word of God and daring to ask such a question (that all need to challenge and correct me, rather than offer scripture to support their doctrinal assumptions)

 

[atpollard]

How does that answer my question?

"It doesn't."

Exactly.

Was I obligated to answer ALL of your questions to YOUR complete satisfaction?

 

[John Bauer]

If you really want me to engage directly with you in a discussion of your area of expertise, then at least allow me to choose the question to discuss.

But these are my questions. Why should you be the one to decide what I get to wonder about?

I have no interest in suffering an inquisition on my views of every aspect of the atonement when I question one small aspect of the popular PSA theory.

I was not engaging in an "inquisition" about "every aspect of the atonement." I saw two incongruencies in your view and asked for clarification.

But if you do not want to answer my questions, so be it. I am content to leave them sitting there unanswered—which is practically itself an answer.

Was I obligated to answer ALL of your questions to YOUR complete satisfaction?

It would’ve been nice if it had answered my question at all, even if not to my satisfaction. (This is in reference to my question, “How is [Christ] the substitute without imputation? How did he stand in our place if our sin and guilt was not imputed to him?”)

 

[Eleanor]

“Once bitten, twice shy.”

I have been accused of heresy and banned from sites for claiming that I cannot locate a verse that supports the transfer of wrath (ever), so I am a bit gun shy and defensive on the topic.

That is found in Mt 27:46, for those who have eyes to see.

Start with 1 Jn 2:2, then there is Jn 1:29, Ro 5:8-9.

Jesus bore God's wrath of which we were the object (Eph 2:3).
It is the Holy Sprit who gives to see and believe these Biblical truths (Jn 3:5). THere is no seeing them apart from that light.

 

[Eleanor]

John,
If you really want me to engage directly with you in a discussion of your area of expertise, then at least allow me to choose the question to discuss. I have no interest in suffering an inquisition on my views of every aspect of the Atonement when I question one small aspect of the popular PSA theory. You stated:
In support, you offered:

• Ephesians 5:2 [ESV] And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
• 1 John 2:2 [ESV] He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
• 1 John 4:10 [ESV] In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
• Romans 3:25-26 [ESV] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
• Isaiah 53:4, 6, 10 [ESV] 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. ... 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned--every one--to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. ... 10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
• 1 Peter 2:22-24 [ESV] He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
• Hebrews 2:10 [ESV] For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.

What I observe in these verses is nothing close to a statement that “his holy Justice demanded a ransom”.

I guess Jesus didn't get the memo: he said that he came "to give his life as a ransom." (Mt 21:28, 1 Tim 2:6, Heb 9:15, Isa 53:10).

Do you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[atpollard]

How is he the substitute without imputation? How did he stand in our place if our sin and guilt was not imputed to him?

I did not deny imputation, I question a Biblical foundation for any claim of transferred wrath.

Ezekiel 18 discusses in depth how God deals with guilt and innocence, punishment and forgiveness, within His economy of JUSTICE. The transfer of wrath from the guilty to the innocent is not discussed (one might say it is ‘anathema’ to what is discussed).

I offered a hint of how Jesus is a substitute (with imputation, but without wrath) in the reference to the “Second Adam” …

1 Corinthians 15:42-57 [ESV]

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. ​

​

50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." 55 "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" ​

​

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.​

​

Thus it seems strange to be called to clarify that with which I agree, while that with which I do not agree is irrelevant to the discussion. What will be gained by challenging points of agreement?

We agree that the Bible teaches that JESUS is our SUBSTITUTE.

 

[Eleanor]

I did not deny imputation, I question a Biblical foundation for any claim of transferred wrath.

What is the "cup" (Jer 25:15, Rev 14:9-10) which Jesus chose to drink (Lk 22:42)?

Too much human notion. . .not enough Biblical notion.

 

[atpollard]

What is the "cup" (Jer 25:15, Rev 14:9-10) which Jesus chose to drink (Lk 22:42)?

Too much human notion. . .not enough Biblical notion.

[Jer 25:15-31 ESV]

15 Thus the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: "Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath, and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. 16 They shall drink and stagger and be crazed because of the sword that I am sending among them." ​

​

17 So I took the cup from the LORD's hand, and made all the nations to whom the LORD sent me drink it: 18 Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, its kings and officials, to make them a desolation and a waste, a hissing and a curse, as at this day; 19 Pharaoh king of Egypt, his servants, his officials, all his people, 20 and all the mixed tribes among them; all the kings of the land of Uz and all the kings of the land of the Philistines (Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod); 21 Edom, Moab, and the sons of Ammon; 22 all the kings of Tyre, all the kings of Sidon, and the kings of the coastland across the sea; 23 Dedan, Tema, Buz, and all who cut the corners of their hair; 24 all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the mixed tribes who dwell in the desert; 25 all the kings of Zimri, all the kings of Elam, and all the kings of Media; 26 all the kings of the north, far and near, one after another, and all the kingdoms of the world that are on the face of the earth. And after them the king of Babylon shall drink. ​

​

27 "Then you shall say to them, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Drink, be drunk and vomit, fall and rise no more, because of the sword that I am sending among you.' ​

​

28 "And if they refuse to accept the cup from your hand to drink, then you shall say to them, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts: You must drink! 29 For behold, I begin to work disaster at the city that is called by my name, and shall you go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished, for I am summoning a sword against all the inhabitants of the earth, declares the LORD of hosts.' ​

​

30 "You, therefore, shall prophesy against them all these words, and say to them: "'The LORD will roar from on high, and from his holy habitation utter his voice; he will roar mightily against his fold, and shout, like those who tread grapes, against all the inhabitants of the earth. 31 The clamor will resound to the ends of the earth, for the LORD has an indictment against the nations; he is entering into judgment with all flesh, and the wicked he will put to the sword, declares the LORD.'​

The “cup” in Jeremiah 25:15 is the wrath of God against the WICKED (those JUDGED).
Let us not forget John 3:18 [ESV] “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Revelation 14:9-12 [ESV]

9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." ​

​

12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.​

The “cup” in Revelation 10 was “God’s anger” against those who “worship the beast”.
Verse 12 is explicit that the “saints” are excluded.

Luke 22:39-46 [ESV]

39 And he came out and went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him. 40 And when he came to the place, he said to them, "Pray that you may not enter into temptation." 41 And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, 42 saying, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done." 43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. 45 And when he rose from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping for sorrow, 46 and he said to them, "Why are you sleeping? Rise and pray that you may not enter into temptation."​

Just a handful of verses earlier, Jesus had spoken of his cup …

Luke 22:14-23 [ESV]

14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. 21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!" 23 And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this.​

The “cup” of Luke 22 is the suffering and death on the cross for “the new covenant in [Jesus] blood.”
The “cup” Jesus drank offers redemption; exactly the opposite of the cup of God’s wrath poured out to punish the wicked.

THAT is what the BIBLE says rather than “human notions”.
Therein lies my issue with “transferred wrath to preserve divine Justice” … it offers perfect “human notions” but lacks the “Bible notions” to support it.

 

[makesends]

[Jer 25:15-31 ESV]

15 Thus the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: "Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath, and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. 16 They shall drink and stagger and be crazed because of the sword that I am sending among them." ​

​

17 So I took the cup from the LORD's hand, and made all the nations to whom the LORD sent me drink it: 18 Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, its kings and officials, to make them a desolation and a waste, a hissing and a curse, as at this day; 19 Pharaoh king of Egypt, his servants, his officials, all his people, 20 and all the mixed tribes among them; all the kings of the land of Uz and all the kings of the land of the Philistines (Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod); 21 Edom, Moab, and the sons of Ammon; 22 all the kings of Tyre, all the kings of Sidon, and the kings of the coastland across the sea; 23 Dedan, Tema, Buz, and all who cut the corners of their hair; 24 all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the mixed tribes who dwell in the desert; 25 all the kings of Zimri, all the kings of Elam, and all the kings of Media; 26 all the kings of the north, far and near, one after another, and all the kingdoms of the world that are on the face of the earth. And after them the king of Babylon shall drink. ​

​

27 "Then you shall say to them, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Drink, be drunk and vomit, fall and rise no more, because of the sword that I am sending among you.' ​

​

28 "And if they refuse to accept the cup from your hand to drink, then you shall say to them, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts: You must drink! 29 For behold, I begin to work disaster at the city that is called by my name, and shall you go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished, for I am summoning a sword against all the inhabitants of the earth, declares the LORD of hosts.' ​

​

30 "You, therefore, shall prophesy against them all these words, and say to them: "'The LORD will roar from on high, and from his holy habitation utter his voice; he will roar mightily against his fold, and shout, like those who tread grapes, against all the inhabitants of the earth. 31 The clamor will resound to the ends of the earth, for the LORD has an indictment against the nations; he is entering into judgment with all flesh, and the wicked he will put to the sword, declares the LORD.'​

The “cup” in Jeremiah 25:15 is the wrath of God against the WICKED (those JUDGED).
Let us not forget John 3:18 [ESV] “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Revelation 14:9-12 [ESV]

9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." ​

​

12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.​

The “cup” in Revelation 10 was “God’s anger” against those who “worship the beast”.
Verse 12 is explicit that the “saints” are excluded.

Luke 22:39-46 [ESV]

39 And he came out and went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him. 40 And when he came to the place, he said to them, "Pray that you may not enter into temptation." 41 And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, 42 saying, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done." 43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. 45 And when he rose from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping for sorrow, 46 and he said to them, "Why are you sleeping? Rise and pray that you may not enter into temptation."​

Just a handful of verses earlier, Jesus had spoken of his cup …

Luke 22:14-23 [ESV]

14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. 21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!" 23 And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this.​

The “cup” of Luke 22 is the suffering and death on the cross for “the new covenant in [Jesus] blood.”
The “cup” Jesus drank offers redemption; exactly the opposite of the cup of God’s wrath poured out to punish the wicked.

THAT is what the BIBLE says rather than “human notions”.
Therein lies my issue with “transferred wrath to preserve divine Justice” … it offers perfect “human notions” but lacks the “Bible notions” to support it.

You can't see the cup Jesus drank as the same cup the rest of the inhabitants of the earth drank —what we would have drunk, had not Christ taken our place? It is exactly the same.

We are given redemption, not because his cup was the opposite of the cup of God's wrath, but because it was the SAME. That cup is not our redemption—Jesus drinking that cup RESULTS in our redemption.

 

[atpollard]

You can't see the cup Jesus drank as the same cup the rest of the inhabitants of the earth drank —what we would have drunk, had not Christ taken our place? It is exactly the same.

We are given redemption, not because his cup was the opposite of the cup of God's wrath, but because it was the SAME. That cup is not our redemption—Jesus drinking that cup RESULTS in our redemption.

I certainly can see that. It is a perfectly logical conclusion (as is the Catholic and Lutheran narrative about the perpetual virginity of Mary). My issue is that

1. The Scripture does not explicitly state that. (I posted what Jesus said HIS cup was).
2. That “logic” violates God’s Justice as described by God himself in Ezekiel 18.

Thus my concerns with the assumed transfer of wrath.

 

[Josheb]

[NOTE: I wrote the following article nearly ten years ago and during my Reformed Baptist phase (c. 2016). I quickly reviewed it while formatting it for posting here and it seems basically okay. I think my writing has improved since then, but I don't have the time or energy to draft a revised edition. My beliefs pertaining to this subject have not changed substantively since that time, so it can remain as-is.]

He gave his life as a ransom

Scripture clearly describes the atoning work of Jesus in terms of a ransom, either directly as in Mark 10:45 ("[Jesus came] to give his life as a ransom for many") or indirectly as in Romans 8:2 ("For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death"). A series of sermons could be done on this subject, but I think we can all agree that this language is surely used in scripture.

I wish I'd seen this op earlier. The Greek word "lutron" can justly be translated as "ransom, but its use in the Greek/Roman societies had little to do with how we use the word "ransom" in modernity. We think of the post of returning someone who has been kidnapped but that was not its original meaning. A lutron was paid when either purchasing a slave's freedom or when redeeming the remaining debt of a bondservant. The latter meaning is the most consistent with the New Testament's usage. Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 would be better translated to read,

Matthew 20:26-18 BLB
Thus, will it not be among you. But whoever wishes to become great among you, he will be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you, he will be your slave; even as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a [redemptive price] for many.

Mark 10:45 BLB
For even the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a [redemption price] for many.


No ransom in the modern sense of the word price was paid. The price to redeem slaves to sin was paid. Within the Hebraic culture the Law prohibited the sons of Israel from owning other sons of Israel. In ancient Israel a debt that could not be aid precipitated the one in debt to work off the debt, and that was done within the jubilee cycle (all debts were cancelled every seven years). This same rule was applied to criminals, too. If you committed a capital crime (and there were witnessed to prove that fact) then you got killed. There were no penitentiaries in ancient Israel. They either killed you or you worked off the debt incurred by your wrongdoing. Both were realities that served as figures for understanding sin. If no one paid for your sin then you were going to be killed after you died. If you couldn't work off the debt of sin (and no one can do so) then you were going to be killed when you died. I think I have expounded on the bond service system and its foreshadowing of the gospel elsewhere in this forum so I'll see if I can track it down and link it to this thread.

This idea that a debt was paid to the devil, is illogical because the Adversary is himself dead in and enslaved to/by sin. He disobeyed God and his life has become forfeit. He's like America: he may have the appearance of great wealth and power, but the reality is that his debt is much larger than everything he makes in an entire year . He is a debtor, not a debt holder.

C. S. Lewis (I think it was in "God in the Docks" but I might have that wrong) once described the fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity as how each perceives the original loss of creation. The Jew considers themselves to have a civil case against Satan because he's conned humanity out of its rightful ownership. The Jew is, therefore, the plaintiff in a civil case in need of justice served in their favor. The Christian sees the problem in a much different manner. Humans have sinned and thereby become criminals in a legal proceeding. It's a criminal case, not a civil case that needs adjudication. God is the wronged person, not humanity. The offense was against God so, therefore, the debt is also owed to God. In the case of what we call the "fall," what God is owed is an unadulterated world with all its creatures also unadulterated. That's why humanity can't ever repay God. No human can ever provide God with an unadulterated self, much less and entire species of unadulterated humans (along with an unadulterated planet). A Creator could do that, but not a creature.

So God sent his Son to pay the price and provide what we could not: an unadulterated life capable of perfecting all that was lost.

 

[John Bauer]

I did not deny imputation.

Good. What are we to make of imputation, then? Do you affirm the symmetrical imputation in Pauline theology—our sin to him, his righteousness to us?

I question a biblical foundation for any claim of transferred wrath.

I am hoping we can get there. No rush. One logical step at a time.

That “logic” violates God’s justice as described by God himself in Ezekiel 18.

How?

 

[makesends]

I certainly can see that. It is a perfectly logical conclusion (as is the Catholic and Lutheran narrative about the perpetual virginity of Mary). My issue is that

1. The Scripture does not explicitly state that. (I posted what Jesus said HIS cup was).
2. That “logic” violates God’s Justice as described by God himself in Ezekiel 18.

Thus my concerns with the assumed transfer of wrath.

Uh, no. The Catholic (or any other) notion of 'perpetual virginity of Mary is not logical, but presumptuous.

I will admit to having read through your post too quickly. You posted two different cups, one that represents his blood poured out, which he drank in fellowship with his disciples at 'the last supper'. You apparently think that cup which he had already drunk is the one he prayed, were it possible, that he be delivered from. What he drank at the supper is not that which he endured at the cross. You are making the two equivalent that are not.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that it is not false equivalence. How does that cup of the new covenant that was poured out for us translate into NOT the cup of God's wrath? I would argue there is a lot more to infer from the "winepress of God's wrath" than from the wedding at CANA.

Ezekiel 18 is not a stand-alone passage. Going with that logic one might decide there is no such thing as imputation of Adam's sin to us.