Does the Ransom Sacrifice doctrine add up? (page 4)

Leolaia

As I mentioned in my first post, the ransom notion has a pecuniary focus; it construes Jesus' death almost as a commercial transaction, as payment securing the release of mankind from sin and death (e.g. "a ransom to set them free from the sins [they] committed" in Hebrews 9:15). Jesus' death is thus not viewed as an expiatory sacrifice (releasing people from sin is different than covering up sin), but it builds on earlier expiatory notions (e.g. both are vicarious, in that the one paying the ransom with his life and the one sacrificing himself are both "innocent" of the penalty).

toreador

Thanks Nicolau, How the heck did I miss that?

M.J.

Leolaia,

the emphasis shifted from Paul's salvation from death to salvation from hell

Point of clarification: what was Paul's salvation from death (through Christ's sacrifice)?
What would have been Paul's definition of death? Did he not demonstrate that he sided with the Pharisees (and contrary to the Sadducees) on the issues of the afterlife, leading one to conclude that he believed in a conscious intermediate state of the soul between bodliy death and resurrection? How would that fit in with Paul's doctrine of death/salvation?

purplesofa

BTW, , AlanF's essay is a darn good read. I suggest everybody click the link on his post

yes,

purps

Leolaia

M.J....Yes, Paul's eschatology was similar in many respects to what we know of the Pharisees, including an intermediate state between death and resurrection. However, at least in my reading, Paul did not view the future resurrection of the dead as just something that always was going to happen, but that Jesus Christ played a critical role in making it happen (e.g. "If Christ has not been raised, you are still in your sins and ... all who have died in Christ have perished", 1 Corinthians 15:17-18). If Jesus was not "put to death for our sins and raised to life to justify us" (Romans 4:25), then the intermediate state would not be intermediate but permanent ... all would die and remain dead. This latter concept is what is expressed in Ecclesiastes (e.g. "No more reward for [the dead] ... never again will they ever take part in whatever is done under the sun", Ecclesiastes 9:5-6), as well in traditional (e.g. pre-Platonic) Greek belief (e.g. "Never more again shall I come back from out of Hades", Homer, Iliad 23.65-76). My point is that Paul wasn't necessarily thinking of everyone being Hell-bound for eternal punishment and Jesus Christ intervened, to prevent those who believe in him from experiencing punishment for being sinners. Now some Jews did conceive of the intermediate state as involving punishment; this is what we find in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31, and while the description in 1 Enoch 22 of the chambers of Sheol where "the souls of the dead ... are gathered until the day of their judgment" does not describe the wicked as being punished in the intermediate state, they are separated from the righteous (who receive special blessing) and will experience "plague and pain forever" after the "great day of judgment" (v. 10-11). But Paul only refers to a future retribution and punishment (e.g. Romans 2:5-9; compare the possibly deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10), and gives no speculation of the state of those presently dead (other than "sleeping"). Paul's focus was simply that Jesus intervened so that the dead won't remain dead forever but will be resurrected -- possibly to a judgment, yes, (or maybe, like 2 Maccabees, the gift of life is reserved for the righteous) but that Jesus has brought life to those for whom sin brought only death.

Terry

I think that possibly we here begin to touch on the "secret" doctrine of the Watchtower Society; that the "bride of Christ" is the second Eve, and this is how the "Bride Class" have a sharing in the redemption of mankind.
Comments?

PRESTO! NEW LIGHT!!

Heck, better send that one in to the writing desk. It should appear by the next Watchtower, for sure :)

T.

toreador

I take it your a Christian Leo? Do you plan to live in heaven or on earth? Do you think the bible both old and new testament is inspired and to what degree if any?

Thank you so much for your answer. I appreciate your insight and knowledge of the subject.

Tor

Narkissos

The Pauline and Johannine literature seems indeed closer to a sort of annihilationist view than the synoptic tradition.

Paul's classic antithesis is between those who are being lost and those who are being saved (e.g. 1 Corinthians 1:18). Overtones of punishment exceeding death are quite rare -- I can only think of Romans 2:6ff: For he will repay according to each one's deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. And here it is only for the sake of symmetry (vs. glory, honor, immortality, etc.), it is not built into a consistent system of reward and punishment.

In John the proto-gnostic paradigm is even more obvious: Jesus came to gather whatever / whomever already belonged to the Father (6:37ff; 11:52; 17:6ff) from a self-judging, self-destroying world of darkness which will ever go on "losing" itself (1:5; 3:19ff).

Reefton Jack

I never could figure it out, and that was one of the things that concerned me - i.e. I could parrot the WTS official line, and maybe even sound like I believed it.

In the end, I could not kee up the charade any longer!

El blanko

Maybe there isn't a lot to puzzle?

It's just a process that kick started and played out as it had to?

A balancing of higher laws through a perfect sacrifice that defies our simple human logic?

A life for many lives - seems fair enough to me.

... there ya go, something to get you mad

Does the Ransom Sacrifice doctrine add up?

Share this