Christ explicated, "For even the Son of man came [] to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.” - Mark 10:45
Yes - showing that Jesus' soul was worth the price for the sins of many people.
We know that each of us, without Jesus, has his life forfeited, so the value of the life of Jesus covers the values of the lives of many others.
Yet, Jem seemed to claim that Jesus' life was equivalent to just the one life Adam forfeited.
Just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.
There is no
because in the Greek, which has "εφ ω παντες ημαρτον", which literally translates as "at which all sinned", in more idiomatic English: "through whom all had sinned" (in the aorist, so this is not repeated or continual sinning, in which case the imperfect would have been used).
(If the "ω" is taken as abstract, referring to the preceding fact, then the construction would mean "with the result that", as
Fitzmyer has shown by a survey of the ancient Greek literature.)
Now what can that mean? Well, the next verse starts with "γαρ" (as always taking the second place in the sentence), which means that an explanation is forthcoming. So let's read on.
For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law. Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come.
Now this is a telling bit: all those who died after Adam but before the Law did
not die to pay for their own sins. Yet they died, as Adams sin was on them - which shows that the life of Adam had not been enough payment, nor were the lives of all those others together. Which is obvious in a way (finite lives can never pay for an infinite debt), but it is good to see Paul pointing it out.
So, whether it is "through whom" or "with the result that", it is necessarily
Adam's sin that is still being paid for.
But it is not with the gift as it was with the trespass. For if by one man’s trespass many died, the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift with the undeserved kindness by the one man Jesus Christ abounded much more to many.
Emphasis mine.
Again, the Bible stresses the incomparably greater worth of Jesus' life.
Also, it is not with the free gift as it was with the way things worked through the one [man] that sinned. For the judgment resulted from one trespass in condemnation, but the gift resulted from many trespasses in a declaration of righteousness.
Again, emphasis mine, and again, the Word stresses the superlative value of Jesus' ransom.
For if by the trespass of the one [man] death ruled as king through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one [person], Jesus Christ.
Again my emphasis, and again Jesus' superlative worth.
So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] many will be constituted righteous.
The point of agreement is rather that both events were single acts by single persons (although Jesus' sacrifice implied His continual non-sinning, whereas Adam only needed one moment of sinning).
As we all know, Adam sold himself to do evil for the selfish pleasure of keeping continued company with his wife, now a sinful transgressor,
Wait a moment - where do you read that Eve sinned before Adam? Eve was seduced, but Adam is the first sinner.
so he shared the same condemned standing with her before God.
Only Adam is thrown out of paradise (Genesis 2:23). Eve, being married, shared in this fate, but only through Adam.
He thereby sold himself and his descendants into slavery to sin and to death, the price that God’s justice required.
Ah, here
Jem and you disagree, and you seem to agree with me that the price paid was Adam's
spiritual death, the one He incurred on the day he ate from the fruit (Genesis 2:17). The price for sin is spiritual death - which is why Jesus had to die a spiritual death, a task accomplished well before He died physically (John 19:28-30). My issue is with Jem's claim that
Jesus never died a spiritual death.
hence, it was “not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats [actually] to take sins away,” as the apostle points out. (Heb 10:1-4)
Amen - which is why God Himself will give His blood on the altar (Leviticus 17:11)
He would have to correspond to the perfect Adam and possess human perfection, if he were to pay the price of redemption that would release Adam’s offspring from the debt, disability, and enslavement into which their first father Adam had sold them. (Compare Ro 7:14; Ps 51:5.)
Now here suddenly the reasoning changes. Up till now we have seen that Jesus' sacrifice is incomparably more valuable than Adam's life.
So this statement is wrong - Jesus' worth had to cover not Adam's worth, but the debt incurred by his sin,
plus the debt incurred by the sins of all other people.
Only thereby could he satisfy God’s perfect justice that requires like for like, a ‘soul for a soul.’—Ex 21:23-25; De 19:21.
Yes, Jem came with that one too. But read the context: this is about bodily harm, and Adam's sin wasn't bodily harm, but theft and sacrilege.
And, The "an eye for an eye" rule was a restriction of vengeance, and before His death Jesus had already reduced this limit to zero (Matthew 5:38-39), so at the time of His crucifiction this revenge permission no longer existed.
However, this results in the magnifying of God’s own love and mercy in that he met his own requirements at tremendous cost to himself, giving the life of his own Son to provide the redemption price. (Ro 5:6-8)
As an aside, for a Trinitarian this sounds obvious, but for unitarians this must mean that both Jesus and the Father suffered. Is that indeed your doctrine? That makes it even less understandable why Jesus had to suffer. God was fully able to do this Himself, after all. But that is rather for another thread.
Were were we..
This required his Son’s becoming human to correspond to the perfect Adam.
Oh, yes - the incongruous statement that I started this thread about. After all the Bible verses showing that Jesus' sacrifice was much more, of much higher worth and value, than Adam's life.
The Christian Greek Scriptures make clear that the release from sin and death is indeed by the paying of a price.
Agreed.
Thus Christ “gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.” (1Ti 2:5, 6)
And here we have the other idea again - that Jesus' worth was enough to cover not the price of one life, nor even the penalty for the sins of one, but the penalty for the sins of all. I am getting confused as to which of the two notions you believe. (By the way,
Jem also wavered, but rather between "the price of the life of Adam" and "the price of the sin of Adam". She didn't extend it to the sins of all.
Under the Law the deliberate murderer could not be ransomed. Adam, by his willful course, brought death on all mankind, hence was a murderer. (Ro 5:12) Thus, the sacrificed life of Jesus is not acceptable to God as a ransom for the sinner Adam.
So, murderers are lost for ever? Including David and Paul?
And the whole reasoning is awry. If there is no ransom possible for Adam's sin, then Jesus' couldn't die as a ransom for Adam's sin.
the scales of justice
Oh, yes - Jem brought up that pagan Roman notion as well. But for theft (part of Adam's sin), one has to repay
more than the amount stolen.