Is monetary imagery of Jesus' salvation work Scriptural?

[Paprika]

Do the Scriptures use monetary and debt imagery in these ways:
1) We owe God a debt and Jesus paid it for us or
2) We owe the devil a debt and Jesus paid it for us?

It really doesn't seem that way to me. 3) is possible, and much less clear-cut:

3) Jesus redeemed (monetarily) us slaves.

That we have obtained redemption through Jesus' work I do not question. But I do wonder if it's using the monetary sense of redemption. Consider: in the main Jewish story of redemption, of deliverance, of the freeing of the slaves, God does not give Pharaoh something of similar value to the Jews slaves in exchange for taking them out. No, when God redeems his people (Exodus 6:6) Pharoah and his are defeated, not given something in exchange.

Hence, when the NT writers speak of redemption (ἀπολύτρωσιν), are they using it in a monetary sense?

(NB: I am not arguing that monetary imagery is valid or accurate, but that it doesn't seem Scriptural. Constructive discussion only, with contextual use of the Scriptures, please.)

[Jedidiah]

I have some difficulty seeing this as a scriptural/nonscriptural issue. It is an analogy. Money really has nothing to do with it beyond the visible analogy.

[Paprika]

I have some difficulty seeing this as a scriptural/nonscriptural issue. It is an analogy. Money really has nothing to do with it beyond the visible analogy.

My question is whether money or debt is actually used in Scripture. It is quite common to find people saying that "Jesus paid our debt for us", my intention behind this thread is to investigate whether such a description is Scriptural.

[Just Some Dude]

Seeing as how I just responded in a similar manner on a similar topic, I will simply parrot old Athanasius and say that the Scriptures point to the debt being paid to death; Jesus was a ransom to death (and Satan, since Satan holds the power of death) for our behalf. So, number 2 I suppose.

[Paprika]

Seeing as how I just responded in a similar manner on a similar topic, I will simply parrot old Athanasius and say that the Scriptures point to the debt being paid to death; Jesus was a ransom to death (and Satan, since Satan holds the power of death) for our behalf. So, number 2 I suppose.

Scriptural evidence, please.

[footwasher]

[robrecht]

The author of the treatise to the Hebrews speaks of the high priest, because of his weakness, being obligated to offer sacrifices for himself. Some might take this to imply that Jesus, who had no such debt, was able to pay the debts of others. But I think those who put too much stock in theories derived from implications and metaphors miss the point entirely.

Paul does speak of the obligation (debt) to follow the law for those who are circumcised, but following Jesus he also teaches a more important way for all of us to fulfill the law:



You owe nothing to anyone, except to love (and respect) each other, for the one who loves the other has fulfilled the law.

[Paprika]

Good question. It was an aspect of the atonement that I wondered about too. God sent Adam into the world to teach him about faith, just as God sent Israel to Egypt for the same reason. He placed attractive candy in front of Adam, He gave Joseph a dream, acts that set off a chain of events culminating in captivity.

In a way, God owes the captors because:

They spent in infrastructure for His children
They cared for His children
They tutored His children

What is this I don't even...

[footwasher]

http://www.frame-poythress.org/ebook...-law-of-moses/

[Paprika]

http://www.frame-poythress.org/ebook...-law-of-moses/

Do stop posting in this thread. Thanks.

[Paprika]

The author of the treatise to the Hebrews speaks of the high priest, because of his weakness, being obligated to offer sacrifices for himself. Some might take this to imply that Jesus, who had no such debt, was able to pay the debts of others. But I think those who put too much stock in theories derived from implications and metaphors miss the point entirely.

Paul does speak of the obligation (debt) to follow the law for those who are circumcised, but following Jesus he also teaches a more important way for all of us to fulfill the law:



You owe nothing to anyone, except to love (and respect) each other, for the one who loves the other has fulfilled the law.

Robrecht: When Paul and the other NT writers used ἀπολύτρωσις, do you think they were evoking the purchasing at the slave markets or the Exodus event? Or both? Or something else?

[robrecht]

Above, I spoke of the use of the language of debt/indebtedness/obligation in the New Testament. Now I turn to the language of redemption/liberation. The metaphor of redemption in the ancient world is very meaningful, liberation from forced slavery, captivity, imprisonment, prostitution, etc, but it is often overlooked by those who speak theologically.

Again, the author of the treatise to the Hebrews, uses this language:

... καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν, ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν λάβωσιν οἱ κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας.

On account of this, he is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that, a death occurring for the liberation of those going astray of the first covenant, those called to the eternal inheritance might receive the promise.

The above is an overly literal translation, so forgive me if it does not seem clear at first. The author is speaking of liberation, but not the payment of debt to God or the devil. Because the verse begins, 'on account of this', one should look to the immediately preceding context for fuller understanding. The author is speaking of finding eternal liberation, of Christ offering himself to God through the eternal Spirit, and his blood purifying our conscience from dead works into the worship of the living God.

[robrecht]

Robrecht: When Paul and the other NT writers used ἀπολύτρωσις, do you think they were evoking the purchasing at the slave markets or the Exodus event? Or both? Or something else?

Paul only uses this word twice, once very generally and once for the 'redemption' of our bodies, so it is hard to make a specific case for him. For all the authors, one should look at each usage in context, but I do think the idea of liberation/release from slavery, imprisonment, prostitution, etc, is an important background for understanding this metaphor. The 'Exodus event' was also liberation from slavery.

I do think Paul is using or alluding to this metaphor with (ἐξ)αγοράζω in 1 Cor 6,20 7.23 Gal 3,14 4,5, especially in 1 Cor 7,23.

[RBerman]

Do the Scriptures use monetary and debt imagery in these ways:
1) We owe God a debt and Jesus paid it for us or
2) We owe the devil a debt and Jesus paid it for us?

It really doesn't seem that way to me. 3) is possible, and much less clear-cut:

3) Jesus redeemed (monetarily) us slaves.

That we have obtained redemption through Jesus' work I do not question. But I do wonder if it's using the monetary sense of redemption. Consider: in the main Jewish story of redemption, of deliverance, of the freeing of the slaves, God does not give Pharaoh something of similar value to the Jews slaves in exchange for taking them out. No, when God redeems his people (Exodus 6:6) Pharoah and his are defeated, not given something in exchange.

Hence, when the NT writers speak of redemption (ἀπολύτρωσιν), are they using it in a monetary sense?

(NB: I am not arguing that monetary imagery is valid or accurate, but that it doesn't seem Scriptural. Constructive discussion only, with contextual use of the Scriptures, please.)

These two passages came to mind:

The word "redemption" does not appear in either text, but the forgiveness of debts is clearly used as a metaphor for the forgiveness of sins. Within the logic of Matthew 18, the manager's debt is owed to the king. Matthew 6 doesn't specify, but a debt is normally forgiven by the one to whom it is owed, which in this case would be God.

[The Remonstrant]

Do stop posting in this thread. Thanks.

Why don't you ever tell me to stop posting, Paprika? What's wrong with you?

Edited to add: Minor correction.