Satan

God

Here is an interesting article.

If the gifts and sacrifices being offered in the first tabernacle were presented to God, (not Satan) would not the sacrifice of Christ be for God and not Satan? (Heb 9:8-12) Also in Exodus 12:13  the shedding of the blood of the passover lamb in Egypt was for Israel's redemption. Isn't this pointing to the time when Christ would die for our redemption? God said: "When I see the blood, I will pass over you" so the blood was not meant to be presented to Satan but to God. It is God's holiness, God's righteousness, which demands that a sinless life should be given for man. It is God who requires it not Satan.

One more thought:

Heb 9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Offered himself to God, not Satan.

Ok fellow bloggers.... am I on the right track or am I missing something.

I've been studying this out a bit, but still not totally clear. Check out Galatians 3:10-14.

¹⁰All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."^{[a] 11}Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."^{[b] 12}The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."^{[c] 13}Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."^{[d] 14}He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

From looking at my concordance it appears that the word for ransom is similar to the word for redeem in the Greek.

How about us?

Whoever recieves a ransom is getting something that they want or think they need, right? Satan surely isn't going to get what he wants. God wants us, but he doesn't need a ransom, does he? However, without Jesus sacrifice, we have nothing - we are dead because of our sins. but with Jesus' sacrifice, we have everything we could ever think to want - eternal life with the One who truly loves us. If I follow an earlier comment correlating ransom with redemption, it would seem WE are the only ones who need to be redeemed - wouldn't that mean that the ransom would be paid for us AND to us

II Corinthians 8:9 says "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich."

Because Jesus paid the ransom to us, we can now stand clean before God, so that He can have what He really wants - US.

Well, I usually think of a ransom being paid to free something or someone.  I think we are the captives, and I think we agree that Christ was the ransom price.  It still makes sense to me that Satan is the one who enslaved, entrapped, or kidnapped us, but those arguing that the ransom was paid to God seem to have some good biblical support.  I need to study more.

I'm beginning to think that maybe there was something accomplished by Christ with God and with Satan in regards to us -- by my thoughts are not clear yet.

Could Satan have repented?  And if so, would a sacrifice have been neccessary?

So I'm a big fan of wikipedia. I was reading something about this week's sabbath school lesson, which led me to look up "atonement" on wikipedia. I knew there were many different views, but I was never clear on what they are. I know it's a lot to wade through, but I think it adds a lot to this conversation. I'm going to do some more reading and may try to summarize what I find later. But for those who enjoy studying these things out, you might want to read here. I'm not sure that it will give any clearer answers, but it will likely bring up more questions!

I just realized that this link is a little less lengthy and more directly address the question here.

1 Peter 1:3,4 says "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. To an INHERITANCE incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you."

Ephesians 1 talks about an inheritance also. Verse 3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...." verse 11 "...In whom also we have obtained an INHERITANCE, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" verse 12 "That we should be to the praise of His glory, who first trusted in Christ."

Maybe initially the ransom was paid to God, but God turned right around and gave that ransom to us that we might have the inheritance promised. For some reason, in my mind, the idea that the ransom is for us AND to us eccentuates God the Father's love for us, His children. Sometimes we stop at Jesus' love, but in John 14:9 it says, "...Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father, and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?"

I don't think I'm understanding your perspective on this.  I don't see how the ransom could be paid to us since we were the captives.  Please explain more.  Is it because Adam and Eve had the choice to become captives?  I agree that we are recipients of a great inheritance, but that inheritance is received through redemption.

Okay, so I'm suggesting the 4th century "ransom to Satan" metaphor.  Those suggesting that the ransom was paid to God are suggesting the 11th century Anselmian metaphor.  Somer's suggestion that the ransom is paid to the law might be seen as the "penal substitution" strand of the Anselmian metaphor.  I think Shannon's notion that the ransom is paid to us would  fall into the category of the "healing" metaphor also originating in the 11th century.

After reading a bit about these various views, I still think that I agree most with the "ransom to Satan" metaphor.  The primary argument against this metaphor (mentioned in the Wikipedia page and also in Judy's article) is that if the ransom was paid to Satan, then God is/was a deceiver because Jesus didn't stay dead.

I think this argument is very weak.  Jesus resurrection was prophesied in the bible; he told his disciples he would rise. I think Satan was well aware of what God and Jesus expected to happen. Satan was willing to give it a try. The trade wasn't Christ's life for ours specifically, but rather his death for our release. Satan got what he bargained for: he killed Christ. His long range plans however, we can presume, did not play out as he had hoped.

The other argument is that Satan is a crook and doesn't deserve to have property rights. I'd agree that he is a crook and the sooner he's gone the better, but apparently God has some purpose in respecting some of his rights. After all, God allowed the tree in the garden, and he has not eliminated Satan yet.

I'm still not prepared to strongly defend my position, but I think that the notion of reconciliation with God is separate and distinct from the notion of our ransom. There were two problems:

1. We defied God and became prodigal sons and daughters

2. We became enslaved to sin/Satan.

These two problems had separate and distinct solutions:

1. We die with Christ and rise with him. i.e. we are transformed back into the image of God and reconciled to him.

2. Christ let Satan kill him in exchange for our release, thus giving us the chance to choose again between good and evil.

Number 2 has been accomplished for all humans. Number 1 only happens if we choose to follow God.