Christ purchased from whom?

[Bill the Cat]

I've been mulling over a few verses for a while.

I asked Jaltus and Dee Dee. Jaltus gave me an interesting answer, but I'll withhold it and Dee Dee was too busy at the time to chew on it.

I'd like Orthodox Christian answers only


Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.


and

Rev 5: 9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.


Jesus purchased the Church with His death, but purchased it from whom?

Also, would this not be some, albeit weak I admit, proof that the church did not begin until Christ came to be the foundation?

Would this not support a small bit of dispensationalism in that respect, and eliminate Acts9 and Acts28 as well?

[bar Jonah]

Not sure I follow you, bro... I'm a fellow dispy, but I don't see the automatic connection to dispensationalism right off the bat. (But then again, I'm a recovering invalid, what do I know? LOL) :ri:

If your point is correct, then Acts 2 dispensationalism is also incorrect, as you seem to be suggesting that the Church began at the cross.

However, dispensationalism holds that the cross equally pays for the sins of all of God's people's, regardless of which dispensation they are in. The relevant point is what is required of a person in the dispensation they are under. Noah wasn't required to have faith in the death and resurrection of the messiah. We are. And that has nothing to do with who Jesus purchased us from.

Can you clarify?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 06:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=232603#post232603)
Bill the Cat:

I've been mulling over a few verses for a while.

I asked Jaltus and Dee Dee. Jaltus gave me an interesting answer, but I'll withhold it and Dee Dee was too busy at the time to chew on it.

I'd like Orthodox Christian answers only


Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.


and

Rev 5: 9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.


Jesus purchased the Church with His death, but purchased it from whom?

Also, would this not be some, albeit weak I admit, proof that the church did not begin until Christ came to be the foundation?

Would this not support a small bit of dispensationalism in that respect, and eliminate Acts9 and Acts28 as well?

To whom were we/they in bondage before they were purchased? Whoever owned us/them is who we/they were purchased from. I believe that was Satan.

[bar Jonah]

I tend to agree, although I haven't looked at this exact question and I'd be happy to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable.

:ri:

[anotherjarvi]

I believe that Christ purchased us from ourselves... Paul writes about being a bondservant of Christ and in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 _he writes "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." This seems to imply that we are not our own *anymore* once we respond to the gospel. doesn't it?

[EdJones]

I agree with OldShepherd


John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


.

[Xmansmommy]

Great question :btc:! Very interesting answers. :thumb:

[RoadRunner]

Some of the Early Church Fathers believed that the "ransom" was paid to the Devil and others rejected that idea and none believed that it was paid to the Father. AFAIK, scripture does not identify a payee, so its not necessary to say that the ransom was paid to anyone.

[Xmansmommy]

RR, because the bible doesn't clarify who the payee is, doesn't negate that there isn't one does it?

[RoadRunner]

Today @ 11:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=233275#post233275)
Xmansmommy:

RR, because the bible doesn't clarify who the payee is, doesn't negate that there isn't one does it?

No, it's perfectly logical to say that the Devil was "paid the ransom", however, it's not necessary to. In fact, it may even be straining the metaphor to identify a payee. For example, when you hear the saying, "so-and-so paid with his life", do you ask, "to whom did he pay"?

[Xmansmommy]

RoadRunner:

No, it's perfectly logical to say that the Devil was "paid the ransom", however, it's not necessary to. In fact, it may even be straining the metaphor to identify a payee. For example, when you hear the saying, "so-and-so paid with his life", do you ask, "to whom did he pay"?

That's a tad different however, because we do know that Christ did pay with His life.

[RoadRunner]

Today @ 02:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=233513#post233513)
Xmansmommy:



That's a tad different however, because we do know that Christ did pay with His life.

Yes, Christ is said to have "paid with His life", but this expression does not require that a payee be specified or even implied.

[bar Jonah]

On the contrary, RoadRunner, it wasn't paid to no one. While this is a metaphor (no one handed someone else cash), it still must have a giver and a receiver.

It occurs to me that Satan is the great Accuser. Satan accuses and DEMANDS punishment, demands a penalty to be paid for sin.

If that penalty is paid, it is paid to the one demanding payment. Jesus paid the penalty.

[RoadRunner]

Today @ 03:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=233568#post233568)
RightIdea:

On the contrary, RoadRunner, it wasn't paid to no one. While this is a metaphor (no one handed someone else cash), it still must have a giver and a receiver.

It occurs to me that Satan is the great Accuser. Satan accuses and DEMANDS punishment, demands a penalty to be paid for sin.

If that penalty is paid, it is paid to the one demanding payment. Jesus paid the penalty.

RightIdea, if you insist on identifying "someone" to whom the ransom was paid, than the Devil is an acceptable answer and I have no problem with it. My point is that there doesn't have to be a payee because, 1) Scripture doesn't say that Christ paid it to anyone in particular and 2) it's not necessary because it overextends the metaphor of ransom/price paid.

[bar Jonah]

Overextends the metaphor?

How on earth can it overextend the metaphor? The concept of payment requires a giver and a receiver, by definition. The concept of sacrifice, in and of itself, is an act of simply giving up something of value. But "payment" requires and giver and a receiver. Look up the dictionary definition, and it will explicitly refer to "payment" being given to someone. There isn't any overextension. If you remove the receiver, you are flat out ignoring the metaphor.

[Piebald]

It occurs to me that Satan is the great Accuser. Satan accuses and DEMANDS punishment, demands a penalty to be paid for sin.

But doesn't God demand a punishment for sin?

[RoadRunner]

Today @ 05:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=233656#post233656)
RightIdea:

Overextends the metaphor?

How on earth can it overextend the metaphor? The concept of payment requires a giver and a receiver, by definition. The concept of sacrifice, in and of itself, is an act of simply giving up something of value. But "payment" requires and giver and a receiver. Look up the dictionary definition, and it will explicitly refer to "payment" being given to someone. There isn't any overextension. If you remove the receiver, you are flat out ignoring the metaphor.

RightIdea, if someone says that "so-and-so paid with his life for his recklessness", no one asks to whom so-and-so paid his life. One can "pay a price" without paying anyone.

[bar Jonah]

God creates the standard. The standard requires punishment. But Satan is the accuser. God, on the other hand, desires reconciliation, and does not desire for us to suffer the punishment. He wishes that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Or am I wrong?

[bar Jonah]

RoadRunner:
RightIdea, if someone says that "so-and-so paid with his life for his recklessness", no one asks to whom so-and-so paid his life. One can "pay a price" without paying anyone.
Ready for this? Grab some paper and a pen.

Death and violence came into the world as a result of sin. Satan was the first to sin, and is the accuser of our sin. If you metaphorically pay for your actions with your life... the payment is still to Satan.

:cool:

[RoadRunner]

Today @ 05:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=233701#post233701)
RightIdea:


Ready for this? Grab some paper and a pen.

Death and violence came into the world as a result of sin. Satan was the first to sin, and is the accuser of our sin. If you metaphorically pay for your actions with your life... the payment is still to Satan.

:cool:

If I understand you correctly, you're telling me that because the price paid involves death and since the Devil holds the power of death, than he, ipso facto, is the payee. Do I have that right?

[bar Jonah]

Something like that, although your wording is different from mine, so I'm not sure if you're leading me somewhere else.

And if you like, I can concede (not agree) that one might have a payment without a receiver in some cases.

But my argument would still be that Satan is the receiver in this case, based on the reasons already given.

[RoadRunner]

Something like that, although your wording is different from mine, so I'm not sure if you're leading me somewhere else.
No, I'm not trying to lead you in any particular direction. I thought that you were agreeing with me in all circumstances except death and in my applying that exception to Hebrews 2:14, I felt that this was the gist of your argument. Perhaps I simply over analyzed your post.


And if you like, I can concede (not agree) that one might have a payment without a receiver in some cases.
This is essentially my point. I see this as one of those cases.

I believe that there are two possible answers to the question, to whom was the price/ransom paid: 1) The Devil and 2) no one. I think that answer #2 is the better answer but if someone insists on identifying a payee, than my answer is #1. Keep in mind that while some of the Early Church Fathers accepted #1, others felt that the notion of God paying the Devil was offensive to pious minds. Personally, I'm not against the idea because it makes sense logically; I just prefer answer #2.


But my argument would still be that Satan is the receiver in this case, based on the reasons already given.
And I have no problem naming Satan as the payee.

[bar Jonah]

RoadRunner:
Personally, I'm not against the idea because it makes sense logically; I just prefer answer #2.
I appreciate what you're saying, but here we have one of the worst possible reasons for holding to a theological stance.

[Bill the Cat]

OK, as to all the previous debate and responses, thank you. Jaltus replied to me:


This is a huge dispute as to who Christ purchased the church from. The ECFs said from Satan, but then people began to realize this gave Satan too much power. The next issue was from Himself, but that borders on incoherent. The true answer, and the most likely grammatically anyway, is God. Christ purchased from God the church, since the church was to be under His wrath. The blood of Jesus satisfies the wrath of God so that the blood of the guilty is not needed. Refer to my post on I John 2:1 in the Biblical Languages area.

[Solly]

Bill, I would nuance that a little, in that it is not simply that Christ purchased the church from God. Remember, the purchase was also a ransoming; we were in bondage to the law, sin and death - and wrath following on from that; these had power over us, reigned over us, and we were slaves (Rom 5), and Christ ransomed/redeemed us, bought us out from under these, by doing what we could not do - liberate ourselves, and paying what we could not pay, which was death signifying the judgment of God. The blood Christ shed was to show that there had been a death - the soul that sinneth, it shall die; throught that, not only were we pardoned, since there had been a sacrifice, but we could go free, since their had been a price paid.

However, I believe that the weight of the meaning rests upon the deliverance afforded, and the cost of it, rather than the inticacies of who got what; certainly Satan is not in the picture, despite the ECF's seeking to follow things through as logically as they could conceive.

As for any dispensational applications; christ must needs die, and in a certain time and place; it is clear however, that the OT saints looked forward to that event, just as we look back, and they could not be made perfect with us also receiving it.

[Reasonable]

In a hostage situation, people pay a ransom to the person holding the people hostage. Are we to believe that Satan had so much authority and power that God had to actually pay Satan to let his people go? Satan is not that strong so as to force God to pay him a ransom. I believe God paid himself. God sets the standards, not Satan or anyone else. God is the one the condemned man to death due to His own righteous standards. He also set the standard that could free mankind (See Roman 3, 5 and 6). He could have overlooked His standard and just waived it off (after all, He is the Supreme Being) but instead, faithfully followed His own standard and offered up His Son for mankind. this makes Jesus' sacrifice even more remarkable because instead of God HAVING to pay Satan to release mankind, He voluntarily sacrificed His Son based on His own principles and released them from death.

[themuzicman]

When one pays a fine for a parking ticket, to whom is the money paid? The police officer, the judge, or the government?

The "ransom" was paying off a debt we owed because of our sin, and that debt was our life. Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to satisfy the debt owed, such that no one was "paid", but that what we owed was cancelled.

Michael

[Solly]

exactly - if I didn't make that clear above.

There is too much made of Satan, from the ECF's to that ghastly Carman song ten years ago, picturing the whole thing as a fight club match.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 08:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=234886#post234886)
themuzicman:

When one pays a fine for a parking ticket, to whom is the money paid? The police officer, the judge, or the government?

The "ransom" was paying off a debt we owed because of our sin, and that debt was our life. Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to satisfy the debt owed, such that no one was "paid", but that what we owed was cancelled.

Michael

Owed to whom though?

[Jacob]

While I'm dis-inclined to speculate where the scriptures are not fairly clear, perhaps both the devil and God received payment... But the following verses suggest, to me, the God received the payment...

jacob

Mat 18:23 "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves.
Mat 18:24 "When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.
Mat 18:25 "But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made.
Mat 18:26 "So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.'
Mat 18:27 "And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.

Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
Col 2:14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Rom 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
Rom 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.

Heb 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Rom 2:6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
Rom 2:7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
Rom 2:8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.

[Bill the Cat]

Jacob, Col 2:14 probably is the strongest case and I had not seen that in my ponderings... Thanks!!

[Solly]

Propitiation is another NT way of looking at it; but whereas ransom/redemption references us, in our bondage, and the price paid to get us out, propitiation references God, and what God did to clear the way for his mercy to go out. Humanity is under sin and the wrath that is due it - the point of the early passages in Romans, and God says, right, I will deal with this, for I intend to show mercy. Through the propitiation, through the blood on the mercy seat, not just as a sacrifice, we can have confidence in God's mercy, esp as he put it there. Through the ransom, men are "set free", through the propitiation, men can draw nigh.

[themuzicman]

Today @ 09:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=234893#post234893)
Bill the Cat:
Owed to whom though?

I suppose the best answer is the demands of justice.

Michael

[Bill the Cat]

That's what I am gathering from the other responses... Thanks!!

Like I said, I've been kicking these verses around for a while and decided to get some good opinions.

Still, I'd like to know how this, if at all, affects dispensationalism. The Church was purchased by Christ from the judgement of God, right? Does this mean it had to exist first as a distinct unit to be purchased? Or was it formed as a collective unit after the individuals were purchased?

[themuzicman]

Or has the church always existed and consisted of those who put their faith in God, whether toward a future salvation or receiving what was promised? :hrm:

Michael

[Bill the Cat]

Like I said "Does this mean it had to exist first as a distinct unit to be purchased"

[themuzicman]

I don't think that Acts 20 implies that there is a corporate atonement. Each of us is ransomed individually by this one act.

Michael

[Solly]

Or the Calvinist would say, the church always existed in the mind of God, in those people who were given to Christ, and united to him in his work. Specific people, specific sins, specific ransom. A body for a head, a bride for a groom, a flock for a shepherd. Thou shalt call his name jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

But that is probably veering away from the central theme here.

[themuzicman]

But a Calvinist, after falling down stairs, says, "Whew! I'm glad that's over with!"

[Solly]

Whereas the Arminian is still asking, did he jump or was he pushed? :lol:

[themuzicman]

And, of course, the open viewer says, "Man, am I a clutz." :doh:

Michael

[Spokoina]

Rom 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?

Delivered him over to who?

1Co 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

No t your own, but was whose and is now?

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
Tit 2:12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,
Tit 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
Tit 2:14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.


1Pe 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;


bought from sin self and satan, owned by now by God for his purposes. not self.

imo
own possession from where to where we go in Christ?

[themuzicman]

I think you're using 'ransom' and 'purchased' in a bit too literal of a manner.

It would be more akin to someone "paying their debt to society" by having gone to jail for 20 years. Did anyone really get paid? No. But it was the fulfillment of the requirements of justice.

Same thing here.

Michael

[Phantym]

10-04-2003 @ 05:27 AM post located here (http://ls101.serverindo.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=233075#post233075)
OldShepherd:



To whom were we/they in bondage before they were purchased? Whoever owned us/them is who we/they were purchased from. I believe that was Satan.

While I am not an orthodox Christian, I have done a great deal of reading on this recently, so I think I can give the orthodox answer.

A bit of history:

The first theory but forth on salvation was that of the early Greek fathers,in the second century. They held a position that some would seem as strange today--that salvation was accomplished in some mystical way due to the linkage between us and Christ. They admitted that this was not the full answer, but their general belief was that : Christ's body died and was regenerated, and that which is regenerated is healed, so if we are in Christ we can be healed as well.

Then, soon after a theory closer to orthodoxy [with one major difference] was hinted at and came into fuller flower with the Origen in the 3rd century. They thought that mankind was trapped in the power of Satan, and Christ paid to release us from that captivity. The logical idea was that Christ paid the devil. Irenaeus even said this made God even more just, as he dealt fairly EVEN with Satan.

My source indicates that for approximately 1000 years this was the reigning theory [in fact, the ONLY opposition appears to be given by Saint Gregory in the 4th century]. A parallel idea of Christ being the bait of a mousetrap was also given, but not to replace the other.

It was not until 11th century, mostly due to Abelard and Anselm that this theory was utterly refuted. Later protestants pushed the theory a bit more [in ways that do not bear on this debate] to reach the current viewpoints of today.



All of that being the case, the orthodox answer is that one can "pay" or "buy" something [metaphorically] without actually paying it to any one particular thing/entity. For example consider the following sentences:

"In 1776, the revolutionaries paid for freedom with their own blood." [The soldiers didn't actually sell their blood.]

"The gods granted her knowledge about the future, the price for this was 'hope,'" ["hope" is not actually given ...it is merely lost].

"I now know that one the ear can easily be ripped from a person's head; I paid for this knowledge with my left one."

I think you get the picture.

[Bill the Cat]

I understand the English idiom, but was there a Greek idiom that meant the same thing. JP talks a lot about the client/patron issue and Paul uses a lot of common phrases to make points like run the race is not literally a foot race. But is this an idiom or an actual transaction? Was not Christ the ransom for us? If He was the ransom, then we had to be held by someone demanding the ransom. Who is the question?

[Phantym]

Yesterday @ 07:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=249620#post249620)
Bill the Cat:

I understand the English idiom, but was there a Greek idiom that meant the same thing. JP talks a lot about the client/patron issue and Paul uses a lot of common phrases to make points like run the race is not literally a foot race. But is this an idiom or an actual transaction? Was not Christ the ransom for us? If He was the ransom, then we had to be held by someone demanding the ransom. Who is the question?

There is a significant problem with trying to get a better idea. Christ probably spoke in Aramaic, and it was transcribed into Greek, so even with the Greek there would be some room for error. Further, one would have to investigate each verse that speaks on this matter separately.

That being the case, i can offer a bit of illumination:
In Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, the word "ransom" is the greek work specific to paying for a slave or captive to make him come out of bondage. In this sort of exchange you would pay that which enslaved you. Now, I don't know if I can claim that this is "orthodoxy," but I would say that it is not Satan himself who enslaves us. Satan has power over the world, but his power over us is indirect, prior to God's intervention. The real thing making us captive is our separation from God. Thus, the cause for our enslavement being suitable impersonal, it seems that a metaphoric take is reasonable.