Merely one perfect physical human life?

[Biep]

If I understand Jem correctly, she claims that the Bible teaches that all Jesus had to pay was one single perfect physical human life, in exchange for the one Adam forfeited.
So far, as Biblical support, all she has given is the text "It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (1 Cor 15:45; Gen 2:7), to which I replied in this post.

Now if a Roman Catholic makes a claim that seems to go against the Biblical message, there often is an easy explanation: very broadly stated, the Bible is not their final authority; their magisterium is.  But the magisterium of the Jehovah's Witnesses, for all I know, claims that the Bible is to have the last word - which raises the question: where in the Bible is this doctrine taught?

Christians generally accept that Christ paid on the cross for our sins - and that includes Adam's sin, even though Adam himself already paid for his sin with his life.  The difference appears when the claim is made that one perfect human life is all payment that was needed to buy all of us free.

So, where in the Bible is that doctrine taught?

[Stephen]

Also, is there any biblical support from the OT telling us that this is what the Jews expected- a merely "perfect" physical human life?

[Maxximiliann]

Christ explicated, "For even the Son of man came [] to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.” - Mark 10:45


This concept of a ransom that needed to be paid is a common theme throughout the Scriptures. The Hebrew noun ko′pher comes from the verb ka·phar′, meaning, basically, “cover,” as in Noah’s covering the ark with tar. (Ge 6:14) Ka·phar′, however, is used almost entirely to describe the satisfying of justice through the covering of or atoning for sins. The noun ko′pher refers to the thing given to accomplish this, the ransom price. (Ps 65:3; 78:38; 79:8, 9) A covering corresponds to the thing it covers, either in its form (as in a material lid, such as the “cover [kap·po′reth]” of the ark of the covenant; Ex 25:17-22), or in its value (as in a payment to cover the damages caused by an injury).As a means for balancing justice and setting matters straight with his people Israel, Jehovah, in the Law covenant, designated various sacrifices and offerings to atone for, or cover, sins.


With this proem in place we're ready to perlustrate how Christ was a ransom, for whom and why a ransom was needed in the first place. We read at Romans 5:12-19, "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—.13 For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law.14 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.


15 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.16 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.17 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.


18 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.19 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."


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, so he shared the same condemned standing with her before God. He thereby sold himself and his descendants into slavery to sin and to death, the price that God’s justice required.


Having possessed human perfection, Adam lost this valuable possession for himself and all his offspring.
The Law, which had “a shadow of the good things to come,” provided for animal sacrifices as a covering for sin. This, however, was only a symbolic or token covering, since such animals were inferior to man; 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) Those pictorial animal sacrifices had to be without blemish, perfect specimens. (Le 22:21) The real ransom sacrifice, a human actually capable of removing sins, must therefore also be perfect, free from blemish. 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.) 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.

The strictness of God’s justice made it impossible for mankind itself to provide its own redeemer. (Ps 49:6-9) 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) This required his Son’s becoming human to correspond to the perfect Adam. God accomplished this by transferring his Son’s life from heaven to the womb of the Jewish virgin Mary. (Lu 1:26-37; Joh 1:14) Since Jesus did not owe his life to any human father descended from the sinner Adam, and since God’s holy spirit ‘overshadowed’ Mary, evidently from the time she conceived until the time of Jesus’ birth, Jesus was born free from any inheritance of sin or imperfection, being, as it were, “an unblemished and spotless lamb,” whose blood could prove to be an acceptable sacrifice. (Lu 1:35; Joh 1:29; 1Pe 1:18, 19) He maintained that sinless state throughout his life and thus did not disqualify himself. (Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1Pe 2:22) As a ‘sharer of blood and flesh,’ he was a near kinsman of mankind and he had the thing of value, his own perfect life maintained pure through tests of integrity, with which to repurchase mankind, emancipate them.—Heb 2:14, 15.

The Christian Greek Scriptures make clear that the release from sin and death is indeed by the paying of a price. Christians are said to be “bought with a price” (1Co 6:20; 7:23), having an “owner that bought them” (2Pe 2:1), and Jesus is presented as the Lamb who ‘was slaughtered and with his blood bought persons for God out of every tribe, tongue, and nation.’ (Re 5:9) In these texts the verb a·go·ra′zo is used, meaning simply “buy at the market [a·go·ra′].” The related e·xa·go·ra′zo (release by purchase) is used by Paul in showing that Christ released “by purchase those under law” through his death on the stake. (Ga 4:5; 3:13) But the thought of redemption or ransoming is more frequently and more fully expressed by the Greek ly′tron and related terms.

Ly′tron (from the verb ly′o, meaning “loose”) was especially used by Greek writers to refer to a price paid to ransom prisoners of war or to release those under bond or in slavery. (Compare Heb 11:35.) In its two Scriptural occurrences it describes Christ’s giving “his soul a ransom in exchange for many.” (Mt 20:28; Mr 10:45) The related word an·ti′ly·tron appears at 1 Timothy 2:6. Parkhurst’s Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament says it means: “a ransom, price of redemption, or rather a correspondent ransom.” He quotes Hyperius as saying: “It properly signifies a price by which captives are redeemed from the enemy; and that kind of exchange in which the life of one is redeemed by the life of another.” He concludes by saying: “So Aristotle uses the verb [an·ti·ly·tro′o] for redeeming life by life.” (London, 1845, p. 47) Thus Christ “gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.” (1Ti 2:5, 6) Other related words are ly·tro′o·mai, “loose by ransom” (Tit 2:14; 1Pe 1:18, 19), and a·po·ly′tro·sis, “a releasing by ransom.” (Eph 1:7, 14; Col 1:14) The similarity of the usage of these words with that of the Hebrew terms considered is evident. They describe, not an ordinary purchase or releasing, but a redeeming or ransoming, a deliverance effected by payment of a corresponding price.

Though available to all, Christ’s ransom sacrifice is not accepted by all, and “the wrath of God remains” upon those not accepting it, as it also comes upon those who first accept and then turn away from that provision. (Joh 3:36; Heb 10:26-29; contrast Ro 5:9, 10.) They gain no deliverance from the enslavement to Kings Sin and Death. (Ro 5:21) 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.

But God is pleased to approve the application of the ransom to redeem those of Adam’s offspring who avail themselves of such a release. As Paul states, “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.” (Ro 5:18, 19) At the time of Adam’s sin and his being sentenced to death, his offspring or race were all unborn in his loins and so all died with him. (Compare Heb 7:4-10.) Jesus as a perfect man, “the last Adam” (1Co 15:45), had a race or offspring unborn in his loins, and when he died innocently as a perfect human sacrifice this potential human race died with him. He had willingly abstained from producing a family of his own by natural procreation. Instead, Jesus uses the authority granted by Jehovah on the basis of his ransom to give life to all those who accept this provision.—1Co 15:45; compare Ro 5:15-17.

Thus, Jesus was indeed “a corresponding ransom,” not for the redemption of the one sinner, Adam, but for the redemption of all mankind descended from Adam. He repurchased them so that they could become his family, doing this by presenting the full value of his ransom sacrifice to the God of absolute justice in heaven. (Heb 9:24) The entire arrangement manifests Jehovah’s wisdom and his righteousness in perfectly balancing the scales of justice while showing undeserved kindness and forgiving sins.—Ro 3:21-26.

[Biep]

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.

[Biep]

Actually, I was rather looking for Scriptural support than for a philosophical treatise.

Some verses roughly stating that Jesus had to pay the price of the life of Adam.

Nevertheless thanks for replying.

[Maxximiliann]

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).

How so?

plus the debt incurred by the sins of all other people.

We are only discussing Adamic sin, the sin we've all inherited by simply being descendents of Adam and Eve. Deliberate sins we commit ourselves are another matter altogether.

But read the context

How does it change the fact that the passages in question establishes God's justice as a perfect equivalency?

I am getting confused as to which of the two notions you believe.

Again, we are only considering Adamic sin.

So, murderers are lost for ever?  Including David and Paul?

This is a non sequitur.

If there is no ransom possible for Adam's sin, then Jesus' couldn't die as a ransom for Adam's sin.

Did Adam sin because of his sinful condition. Had Adam inherited sin?

[Biep]

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).

How so?

Because "slavery to sin" is hardly a property of physical death, but clearly a sign of spiritual death.

Deliberate sins we commit ourselves are another matter altogether.

Of course - but that is part of what Jesus' ransom must cover.  When a sinner comes to Christ, and his personal sins would not be covered by the ransom, he would be as lost as before. 

But read the context

How does it change the fact that the passages in question establishes God's justice as a perfect equivalency?

Because

• that law (about bodily injury done) doesn't apply to Adam's case;
• it isn't about justice but about limiting revenge;
• by the time Jesus died He had already limited this revenge to zero, and
• in cases where such supposed equivalency would show up it doesn't, e.g. by repayment after theft (which does apply to Adam's sin).

Again, we are only considering Adamic sin.

All right, it seems I wasn't clear in the OP.  I created this thread because I want to know the extent of what Christ's ransom covered.  Suppose it merely covered Adam's sin - that would be great news for Adam, but not for other sinners.

So a discussion about what Jesus' ransom meant to Adam alone is not the kind of discussion I am interested in.  In fact, I am not looking for discussion - or not directly.  I am looking for Scriptural support for Jem's position (and may of course want to discuss that later).  Jem is in general a lucid and articulate defender of her views, but she has a tendency to quit discussions just when they are going somewhere and getting interesting.  I really hope she will come and explain her position by giving (in her eyes, of course) clear Scriptural support for it.  (Jem, are you reading this?).

So thanks for citing Mark 10:14 and the passage in Romans 5 that show that Jesus' ransom is much greater than the worth of Adam's life, but I knew that already.  I am looking for the opposite position, because I want to evaluate it and see whether there may be something in it.

[Biep]

I don't want to pursue this further in this thread, but you deserve an answer to your remarks, so here goes..

So, murderers are lost for ever?  Including David and Paul?

This is a non sequitur.

Why?  If the law doesn't allow for a ransom for murderers, Christ cannot be a ransom for murderers.

If there is no ransom possible for Adam's sin, then Jesus' couldn't die as a ransom for Adam's sin.

Did Adam sin because of his sinful condition. Had Adam inherited sin?

The law you cite is for post-fall people, so it applies at least to such people.  If it only applies to post-fall people, it doesn't apply to Adam - yet you do apply it to Adam, so you seem to believe it also applies to pre-fall people.

So: does that law apply to Adam?  If so, if no ransom for Adam's sin is possible, Christ could not die as a ransom for Adam's sin.  If not, if it only applies to post-fall murderers such as David and Paul, then for them no ransom is possible.

[Maxximiliann]

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).

How so?

Because "slavery to sin" is hardly a property of physical death, but clearly a sign of physical death.

First, how is this germane and, two, what in the world are you talking about? How is your affirmation not a fallacious argumentum distinctionis sine differentia?

Deliberate sins we commit ourselves are another matter altogether.

Of course - but that is part of what Jesus' ransom must cover.

When a sinner comes to Christ, and his personal sins would not be covered by the ransom, he would be as lost as before.

But such is a conditional benefit for it is extended only to those who exercise faith in Christ's ransom sacrifice, not automatic and, therefore, not universal.

But read the context

How does it change the fact that the passages in question establishes God's justice as a perfect equivalency?

Because
 

• that law (about bodily injury done) doesn't apply to Adam's case;

Why not?

• it isn't about justice but about limiting revenge;

  How is this not just?

by the time Jesus died He had already limited this revenge to zero, and

Argumentum assertio. Please expatiate.

in cases where such supposed equivalency would show up it doesn't, e.g. by repayment after theft (whichn does apply to Adam's sin).

Argumentum assertio. Please expatiate.

Suppose it merely covered Adam's sin

Adam's sin was deliberate therefore he could not benefit from the payment of the ransom. It would be like a kidnapper who receives the ransom he demands and, as a result, is exonerated of the kidnapping he committed to get the ransom. God's justice doesn't work that way.

So thanks for citing Mark 10:14 and the passage in Romans 5 that show that Jesus' ransom is much greater than the worth of Adam's life

Strawman. Try again.

[Biep]

Waiting for Jem.  It seems she left the discussion again, but who knows..

[Jem]

Actually, I was rather looking for Scriptural support than for a philosophical treatise.

Everything that you asked for is in Maxx's post #2

It's all there. No one is expecting you to agree, but a full explanation was furnished.

This is a detailed explanation of our beliefs on the ransom.

Some verses roughly stating that Jesus had to pay the price of the life of Adam.

When you understand the "ransom" as it applied to God's stated laws, you will see that equivalency is part of God's arrangement. The scales of justice is not a pagan idea...it is Biblical. The image may not be, but the concept certainly is.

"Soul for soul" was part of God's law, just as 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' demonstrated equivalency. Even if a struggle between men caused an accidental miscarriage or premature death of a foetus, "life for life" was the penalty.
The "soul" (life) that Adam lost, could only be atoned for by an equivalent "soul" (life).

There was now no equivalent soul since sin had entered into the world through the only human lives that existed. (Rom 5:12)
A human soul had to come from outside the now sinful human race to offer to God an equivalent ransom, not for Adam, but for all of his children who inherited sin through no fault on their part.

Adam paid the penalty for his own sin. His wife, having the same penalty imposed for the same act of disobedience, also suffered the same fate....ageing, sickness and eventually physical death. There was no excuse for their disobedience. They made the choice in full knowledge of the stated outcome. Perfect beings do not make mistakes. Eve was deceived, but still disobedient. Adam was not deceived, so his decision to side with his wife was also made in full knowledge of the consequences. They expected no forgiveness, and there is not one expression of remorse from either of them....not one sacrifice offered by them. Abel is the first one to have done so.

In the headship arrangement, Eve was to be in submission to her husband's direction. Did she seek it before making her decision? The scriptures tell us that she was thoroughly deceived, but Adam wasn't. It is his sin that was responsible for the death of the human race that descended from both of them.

Have you ever wondered what would have happened if Adam had not joined his wife in rebellion? We may well have seen a totally different outcome. What if they had both told the devil to "get lost" as Jesus did?

There were three possible outcomes and God allowed his free willed creatures to make their own choices. He had the rest of forever to accomplish his will, so everything played our exactly as each choice would have determined. This is Jehovah living up to the meaning of his name. He will "become" whatever he needs to be in order for his will to be accomplished.

Our position on this point is logical and scriptural and in accord with Jehovah's clearly stated laws.

Read the explanation in post #2 and you will see it clearly. 

What else needs to be said?

[Biep]

Everything that you asked for is in Maxx's post #2
It's all there. No one is expecting you to agree, but a full explanation was furnished.

Except that it isn't - or at least I don't see it.

I have studied that post once again, but apart from a lot of expatiation, all I can find there is:

• Mark 10:45, which explains that Jesus' ransom covers many, not just Adam.  You may have an interpretation under which that doesn't contradict your view, but it hardly supports it.
• Romans 5:12-19, which explains that the ransom is not like the sin.  The same remark applies.
• The unsupported and question-begging statement that the ransom had to correspond to the perfect Adam.
  (If that were true, and Adam paid the price, there would be no debt left to pay.)
• The misplaced appeal to the law that limited revenge in the case of bodily harm.  To show this supposed 'equity', one would have to show it in the cases of theft and sacrilege.  This burden still stands.
  (In fact, the only 'equity' is restitution - see the difference in Exodus 22: restitution for unintended harm, but no equity for intended harm.)
• The statement that the required price was sale into slavery and death - with which, I understand, you don't agree, as you have stressed that the price was physical death.
• A bit on the Greek verb λυτρόω, where he seems to say that the price must cover as many lives as are bought free.  Here again I understand you don't agree, holding that it was merely the worth of one perfect life that Jesus gave.
• Yet another way of extending the worth of Jesus' ransom, by including His spiritual offspring.  First of all: this is weird - in the end it would mean that I died, in Jesus' loins, as a ransom for my own sins.  But again, I understand you don't agree, as you hold the theory of one single physical life.
• And then he ends:

  Jesus was indeed “a corresponding ransom,” not for the redemption of the one sinner, Adam, but for the redemption of all mankind descended from Adam.

  Emphasis mine.  And indeed, his whole text seems to lead up to that conclusion, which seems diametrically opposed to your position as stated before.

So I am a bit amazed that you point to this post as if supporting your theory.  But maybe I have completely misunderstood your doctrine.

Elsewhere you said something about Jesus' body being the price.  Now that is a very different statement.  Imprisonment is payment with my body (but not with my life), whereas capital punishment is payment with my life (but not with my body, which my family may come and collect after the execution).
So maybe I should simply ask you to state your position again, as I have the feeling I am misunderstanding it at a crucial point.

[Biep]

I think I see where the "equivalence principle" comes from.  In the Law, one must distinguish loss and guilt.  If I cause a loss, that loss must be compensated - there obviously an equity principle holds.

But that compensation does nothing for my guilt.  If I am guilty, completely separately from the compensation for the loss, a penalty is to be paid.  This penalty is to cover my guilt, and has nothing to do with scales.  If I publicly call you horrible names, the law does not tell you to call me the same names so that we are on equal footing again.  The penalty for guilt exceeds equity (Genesis 12:3; Matthew 5:22), because God's infinite honour is involved.

So, yes, an equal price must be paid for the loss, but that does nothing to cover the guilt - that of Adam and that of all of us who came after.  And that equal price is not just one life: through Adam's sin God lost His whole creation - all of it lies in the evil now.  That is one reason why the whole creation does not suffice as a ransom for one soul - Matthew 16:26.

(As an aside, in Dutch law, returning or compensating for stolen goods is not even in the criminal law.  One must ask the judge specifically to add that to the verdict, or else the goods stay with the thief.  Very principled, but maybe not very practical.)

[Biep]

A real pity this thread stopped when I left for Africa.  I had hoped to find some answers here when I returned.
I think, besides the Biblical foundation (verses clearly stating or implying this doctrine), there are three main questions I have concerning the price paid by Jesus.

• What was being paid?
  • A physical death
  • A spiritual death
  • A body
• To whom was this price paid?
  • To the Father
  • To satan
• What did this payment cover?  What was it the price for?
  • Adam's physical life
  • Adam's spiritual life
  • Adam's sin
  • The sins of all believers
  • The sins of all people

Now these lists of possible answers are clearly not exhaustive, so don't hesitate to answer with options that I haven't listed.

[Maxximiliann]

A real pity this thread stopped when I left for Africa.  I had hoped to find some answers here when I returned.
I think, besides the Biblical foundation (verses clearly stating or implying this doctrine), there are three main questions I have concerning the price payed by Jesus.

• What was being payed?
  • A physical death
  • A spiritual death
  • A body
• To whom was this price payed?
  • To the Father
  • To satan
• What did this payment cover?  What was it the price for?
  • Adam's physical life
  • Adam's spiritual life
  • Adam's sin
  • The sins of all believers
  • The sins of all people

Now these lists of possible answers are clearly not exhaustive, so don't hesitate to answer with options that I haven't listed.

1. Christ's blood -
“[Christ] entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place [“heaven itself”] and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us.”—Hebrews 9:12; 1 John 2:2. (Brackets mine)

2. To Jehovah God, the Father -
"Christ entered [] into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us." -Hebrews 9:24 (Brackets mine)

3. "And [Christ] is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s." -1 John 2:2 (Bracket mine)

Jesus gave his life as a propitiatory sacrifice and so appeased, or satisfied, Jehovah God's requirement of perfect justice. On the basis of that sacrifice, the Father could now extend mercy, and he could forgive the sins of those who exercise faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice.—John 3:16; Romans 6:23.