Unveiling the Trinity: Exploring the Nature of Jesus and the Incarnation

Luke J. Wilson | 21st July 2024 | Trinity

Monarchical Trinitarianism, also referred to as the “Monarchy of the Father,” is a theological perspective that asserts the Father as the sole source (or monarch) within the Trinity. This view maintains a clear distinction of roles among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit while upholding their unity in essence. It is essential to distinguish this from Monarchianism, a heretical belief condemned in the 4th century, which posited that God is a single person rather than three distinct persons. The Eternal Begottenness of the Son The term “created” used by the early pre-Nicene Fathers does not align with the Arian view, which posits that the Son was created ex nihilo (out of nothing), making Him a creature. As Arius infamously declared, “there was a time when the Son was not”. Rather, the Fathers articulated that the Son was begotten out of the Father, emphasising His divine origin and eternal existence within the Father’s bosom (cf. John 1:18 in Greek). As Justin Martyr explains, “For Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 46). This highlights that the Son, the Word, existed eternally with the Father before being begotten and manifested. Similarly, Hippolytus expounds on this concept, noting that “God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world … For He was neither without reason, nor wisdom, nor power, nor counsel And all things were in Him, and He was the All. When He willed, and as He willed, He manifested His word in the times determined by Him, and by Him He made all things. … And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that it is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one power, which is from the All; and the Father is the All, from whom cometh this Power, the Word. And this is the mind which came forth into the world, and was manifested as the Son of God.” (Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Chapter 10–11). Here, Hippolytus underscores the eternal existence of the Word within God, proceeding from the Father and being of the same essence. The Procession of the Holy Spirit The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is another essential aspect of Monarchical Trinitarianism. The Spirit, like the Son, derives His essence from the Father, ensuring that He is co-equal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Tertullian speaks to this procession in his work, Against Praxeas, explaining how the Word and Spirit derive their essence from the Father. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. … Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, while it at the same time guards the state of the Economy. (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 8). Looking at how Tertullian describes this doctrine, we can see how he has gone to lengths to carefully explain how the relationship within the Trinity exists together and relate to one another, while keeping intact the source and essence of divinity united and uncompromised. When we talk about these things, we use terms like “ontological” and “economy” to help to describe the Godhead. Ontology is the study of being, and what make...

Luke J. Wilson | 01st July 2024 | Trinity

The Trinity is a cornerstone of Christian faith, defining God as one Being in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, throughout history, various misunderstandings and false teachings — known as heresies — have arisen, challenging this core doctrine. Understanding these heresies can strengthen our faith and deepen our appreciation for the truths held by the Church since its earliest days. What Is the Trinity? Before diving into the heresies, let’s briefly review what we mean by the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one essence in three distinct Persons: The Father: The Creator and sustainer of all. The Son (Jesus Christ): God incarnate, who lived, died, and was resurrected for our salvation. The Holy Spirit: The presence of God active in the world and within believers. This concept is rooted in Scripture and has been affirmed by the Church through various councils and creeds. Common Historical Heresies Arianism What It Taught: Arius, a priest in the early 4th century, claimed that Jesus Christ was not of the same substance as the Father. He taught that the Son was a created being, distinct and subordinate to the Father. Church’s Response: The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism, affirming that the Son is “of the same substance” (homoousios) as the Father. This is reflected in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God… of one Being with the Father.” Patristic Quote: Athanasius, a staunch defender against Arianism, wrote, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” (On the Incarnation, 8:54). Modalism (Sabellianism) What It Taught: Sabellius proposed that God is one Person who reveals Himself in three different modes or aspects: as the Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in sanctification. This denies the distinctiveness of the three Persons. Church’s Response: Modalism was rejected because it undermines the relational aspect of the Trinity. The distinct Persons interact with each other, as seen in Jesus’ baptism where the Father speaks, the Son is baptised, and the Spirit descends like a dove. Patristic Quote: Tertullian argued against Modalism by affirming the distinctiveness within the Godhead: “We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation… there is the Son, who has issued from the Father, and the Spirit, who has issued from both Father and Son” (Against Praxeas, 2). Nestorianism What It Taught: Nestorius, a 5th-century bishop, suggested that Jesus Christ was two separate persons — one human and one divine — rather than one Person with two natures. Church’s Response: The Council of Ephesus in 431 AD declared that Jesus is one Person with two distinct yet united natures: divine and human. This ensures that Jesus is fully God and fully man, capable of bridging the gap between humanity and divinity. Patristic Quote: Cyril of Alexandria emphasised the unity of Christ: “Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.” (Cyril of Alexandria Letter to John of Antioch). Docetism What It Taught: Docetists believed that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion and that He only seemed to suffer and die on the cross. Church’s Response: The Church affirmed that Jesus’ incarnation and suffering were real, as this is essential for our salvation. Jesus’ true humanity allows Him to truly represent us and atone for our sins. Patristic Quote: Ignatius of Antioch stressed the reality of Jesus’ incarnation and suffering: “He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and powe...

Luke J. Wilson | 16th November 2023 | Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity, which asserts the co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has deep roots in the early Christian writings of the first three centuries. While the full articulation of the Trinity developed over time, culminating at the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century, references to the equality of these three persons can be traced back to influential documents and the teachings of early Church Fathers in the centuries leading up to this pivotal moment in Church History. Early Church Beliefs and Teachings One of the earliest Christian documents, the Didache, believed to have been written in the late first or early second century, provides a clear reference to the co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In chapter 7, it instructs the baptismal formula to be in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, emphasising their equal importance and authority in the Christian faith. While this is basically repeating Scripture (Matt 28:19), it demonstrates that the understanding of a 3-fold name of God to baptise in was a common practice in the early Christian communities. The writings of prominent early Church Fathers further affirm the concept of the Trinity. Clement of Rome, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 46, written around AD 96, emphasises the unity in God, Christ, and the Spirit, stating, “Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace poured out upon us?”. Clement provides an important link back to the Apostles, too, as Origen of Alexandria (AD 185—284) and Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 260—340) maintained that Clement of Rome was the same Clement mentioned by the apostle Paul in Philippians 4:3. Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130—200) also tells us that “this man [Clement], as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes” (Against Heresies 3:3). So, his letter provides important context when discussing this topic and what apostolic teaching was. Likewise, Justin Martyr, writing around AD 150, in chapter 13 of his First Apology writes about the triune nature of God, and how Jesus is in “second place” within the Godhead: Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. Origen's work "De Principiis" (On First Principles), written around AD 220, also displays an early understanding of the equality of the three Persons within the Godhead. In Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 7 of this work, Origen discusses the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the Trinity: But there is nothing in the Trinity that can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification. First Use of the Word "Trinity" The first recorded use of the term "Trinity" is often attributed to the early Christian theologian Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD) in the Latin form "Trinitas". Tertullian was a prolific writer and is known for his contributions to early Christian theology. One of the passages where he addresses the concept of the Trinity is from his work "Against Praxeas" (Adversus Praxean). In this treatise, Tertullian defends the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while maintaining the unity of the G...

Luke J. Wilson | 04th January 2022 | Trinity

The doctrine and concept of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. John, who was very close to Jesus and obviously knew him well, alludes to this teaching frequently in his Gospel, too. For example: John 1:1; John 8:58; John 10:30; and John 10:38. Yet, despite this, and numerous other examples throughout the New Testament which point towards the threefold nature of God, plenty of myths and legends abound online and in books which state that the divinity of Jesus (and therefore the Trinity) were invented at the Council of Nicaea. But any serious reader of Church History will see and know that that is complete nonsense. Christians have recognised the divinity of Jesus since the earliest times, even if they didn’t use the word “Trinity”. First use of the word “Trinity” The word Trinity was first used as early as A.D. 170 by Theophilus of Antioch, a Patriarch of Antioch, when writing about the creation account and how it relates to the nature of God: In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. — Theophilus, Of the Fourth Day, Chapter XV Then in the early third century, around A.D. 208–210, Tertullian was the first to use “Trinity”, “person”, and “substance” to explain that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity … yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost … they are susceptible of number without division … which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons… — Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 2, 3 Earlier still, we can find Trinitarian language used about God in 1 Clement (~95), the Epistle of Barnabas (~70–96) and the letters of Ignatius (108–110) long before Nicaea codified the terminology. Not only are these very early texts, but the authors are links back to the Apostles themselves, having sat under, and learnt from them. Could they have got such a core belief wrong so soon after learning from Paul or John? It’s highly unlikely. So, to display this as plainly as possible, and to act as a proof against those who would like to rewrite history and say that “the Church invented the Trinity/deity of Christ at Nicaea”, below is a large selection of quotes from Apostolic period onward showing that Christians everywhere for all time have believed Jesus was the divine Son and Word of God, incarnate in flesh, yet still recognised him as God and creator. Quotes From the Early Church The Didache (c. 70) And concerning baptism, baptise this way: Having first said all these things, baptise into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. … But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. — Didache 7:1, A.D. 70. Clement of Alexandria (c. 95-140) Do we not have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace which was poured out upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ? — 1 Clement 46:6, ~A.D. 95 Brothers, we ought to think of Jesus Christ, as we do of God, as ‘Judge of the living and the dead’ — 2 Clement 1:1, ~A.D. 95–140 Ignatius of Antioch (c. 108-110) …to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia … and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God… — Letter to the Ephesians 1, A.D. 108–110 For our God, Jesus Chr...

Luke J. Wilson | 21st July 2024 | Trinity

Monarchical Trinitarianism, also referred to as the “Monarchy of the Father,” is a theological perspective that asserts the Father as the sole source (or monarch) within the Trinity. This view maintains a clear distinction of roles among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit while upholding their unity in essence. It is essential to distinguish this from Monarchianism, a heretical belief condemned in the 4th century, which posited that God is a single person rather than three distinct persons. The Eternal Begottenness of the Son The term “created” used by the early pre-Nicene Fathers does not align with the Arian view, which posits that the Son was created ex nihilo (out of nothing), making Him a creature. As Arius infamously declared, “there was a time when the Son was not”. Rather, the Fathers articulated that the Son was begotten out of the Father, emphasising His divine origin and eternal existence within the Father’s bosom (cf. John 1:18 in Greek). As Justin Martyr explains, “For Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 46). This highlights that the Son, the Word, existed eternally with the Father before being begotten and manifested. Similarly, Hippolytus expounds on this concept, noting that “God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world … For He was neither without reason, nor wisdom, nor power, nor counsel And all things were in Him, and He was the All. When He willed, and as He willed, He manifested His word in the times determined by Him, and by Him He made all things. … And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that it is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one power, which is from the All; and the Father is the All, from whom cometh this Power, the Word. And this is the mind which came forth into the world, and was manifested as the Son of God.” (Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Chapter 10–11). Here, Hippolytus underscores the eternal existence of the Word within God, proceeding from the Father and being of the same essence. The Procession of the Holy Spirit The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is another essential aspect of Monarchical Trinitarianism. The Spirit, like the Son, derives His essence from the Father, ensuring that He is co-equal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Tertullian speaks to this procession in his work, Against Praxeas, explaining how the Word and Spirit derive their essence from the Father. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. … Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, while it at the same time guards the state of the Economy. (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 8). Looking at how Tertullian describes this doctrine, we can see how he has gone to lengths to carefully explain how the relationship within the Trinity exists together and relate to one another, while keeping intact the source and essence of divinity united and uncompromised. When we talk about these things, we use terms like “ontological” and “economy” to help to describe the Godhead. Ontology is the study of being, and what make...

Luke J. Wilson | 01st July 2024 | Trinity

The Trinity is a cornerstone of Christian faith, defining God as one Being in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, throughout history, various misunderstandings and false teachings — known as heresies — have arisen, challenging this core doctrine. Understanding these heresies can strengthen our faith and deepen our appreciation for the truths held by the Church since its earliest days. What Is the Trinity? Before diving into the heresies, let’s briefly review what we mean by the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one essence in three distinct Persons: The Father: The Creator and sustainer of all. The Son (Jesus Christ): God incarnate, who lived, died, and was resurrected for our salvation. The Holy Spirit: The presence of God active in the world and within believers. This concept is rooted in Scripture and has been affirmed by the Church through various councils and creeds. Common Historical Heresies Arianism What It Taught: Arius, a priest in the early 4th century, claimed that Jesus Christ was not of the same substance as the Father. He taught that the Son was a created being, distinct and subordinate to the Father. Church’s Response: The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism, affirming that the Son is “of the same substance” (homoousios) as the Father. This is reflected in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God… of one Being with the Father.” Patristic Quote: Athanasius, a staunch defender against Arianism, wrote, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” (On the Incarnation, 8:54). Modalism (Sabellianism) What It Taught: Sabellius proposed that God is one Person who reveals Himself in three different modes or aspects: as the Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in sanctification. This denies the distinctiveness of the three Persons. Church’s Response: Modalism was rejected because it undermines the relational aspect of the Trinity. The distinct Persons interact with each other, as seen in Jesus’ baptism where the Father speaks, the Son is baptised, and the Spirit descends like a dove. Patristic Quote: Tertullian argued against Modalism by affirming the distinctiveness within the Godhead: “We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation… there is the Son, who has issued from the Father, and the Spirit, who has issued from both Father and Son” (Against Praxeas, 2). Nestorianism What It Taught: Nestorius, a 5th-century bishop, suggested that Jesus Christ was two separate persons — one human and one divine — rather than one Person with two natures. Church’s Response: The Council of Ephesus in 431 AD declared that Jesus is one Person with two distinct yet united natures: divine and human. This ensures that Jesus is fully God and fully man, capable of bridging the gap between humanity and divinity. Patristic Quote: Cyril of Alexandria emphasised the unity of Christ: “Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.” (Cyril of Alexandria Letter to John of Antioch). Docetism What It Taught: Docetists believed that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion and that He only seemed to suffer and die on the cross. Church’s Response: The Church affirmed that Jesus’ incarnation and suffering were real, as this is essential for our salvation. Jesus’ true humanity allows Him to truly represent us and atone for our sins. Patristic Quote: Ignatius of Antioch stressed the reality of Jesus’ incarnation and suffering: “He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and powe...

Luke J. Wilson | 27th June 2024 | Eucharist

This past Sunday at church, we were looking at Genesis 14 in the sermon. There’s a lot going on in this chapter with nine different kings all at war fighting one another, and Abram and Lot somehow mixed up in the middle of it (this is before Abram is renamed to Abraham). Sodom gets invaded, Lot gets taken captive (along with everyone else) and then Abram mounts a daring rescue with 318 of his men! It’s really quite action-packed for such a short chapter. I don’t know about you, but I always think of Abraham as this kindly old man, not some tribal warrior ready to go all “Taken” on his enemies (Gen 14:14–16). Abraham, probably It’s in the midst of all this action that we meet a mysterious character who pretty much just turns up out of nowhere: Melchizedek, king of Salem. He is one of those characters from the Old Testament whose actions reverberate down through history into the New Testament era and beyond and into our present-day worship. Despite the number of kings fighting all across Canaan, Melchizedek doesn’t appear to be a part of these conflicts and only enters the scene when it’s all over, and Abram has rescued Lot and subdued the king who captured Sodom. Then “the king of Sodom went out to meet [Abram] at the Valley of Shaveh, that is, the King’s Valley.” (Gen 14:17), which is modern-day Kidron Valley, just outside of Jerusalem. So the meeting was local and close to Melchizedek, but still doesn’t explain what happens next to Abram: Genesis 14:18–20And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth,and blessed be God Most High,  who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” The blessing of bread and wine by Melchizedek connects us with the divine thread that will flow through all time and history: the then-future Passover and, ultimately, with Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist. This connection underscores a sacred continuity that we, as Christians, continue to partake in today until Jesus returns. Melchizedek: Priest and King Melchizedek appears in Genesis 14:18–20, where he is described as the king of Salem and a priest of the Most High God. His encounter with Abram (Abraham) is brief but significant. He brings out bread and wine and blesses Abraham. He then responds by giving Melchizedek a tenth of everything. Both of these acts point to aspects of the Law, tithes and sacrifices, which at this point in time had not yet been given, which leaves us with more unanswered questions regarding what this priesthood of Melchizedek was (and its origins), and also why Abraham would give a tenth like a tithe. Salem, which is understood to be the ancient name for Jerusalem, means “city of peace”. This is highly significant as it links to the messianic prophecy of Jesus being the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). The connection between Melchizedek being the king of Salem and Jesus being in the lineage of David, who reigned in Jerusalem, ties the notion of peace directly into the divine narrative. Melchizedek’s role as a king and priest in the city of peace prefigures the ultimate role of Jesus as Messiah. Jesus, the Prince of Peace, not only fulfils the royal lineage through King David but also the priestly order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:2–3 elaborates on Melchizedek’s name and title, explaining that Melchizedek “means ‘king of righteousness’; next, he is also king of Salem, that is, ‘king of peace’.” This dual kingship of righteousness and peace perfectly summarises Jesus’ ministry and mission. Psalm 110:4 further cements Melchizedek’s significance by declaring the Messiah as “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”. This eternal priesthood signifies a lasting peace and righteousness that Jesus embodies and imparts to His followers (John 14:27). Thus, Melchizedek’s brief appearance becomes a profound for...

Luke J. Wilson | 22nd June 2024 | Salvation

I recently made a video doing a response to something the televangelist “prosperity gospel” preacher Jesse Duplantis said in one of his recent videos. He was using Psalm 49:16 as a proof-text to say it’s ok that he is super wealthy, but clearly missing the context of the whole Psalm as it is speaking against those who boast and trust in their riches! Here’s the video if you want to watch it, it’s only 1:57 long (don’t forget to subscribe to me on YouTube or TikTok as that’s where I’m posting a lot more of my content recently):   But this did get me thinking about something to do with what Jesus said in his ministry and how his sacrifice fulfils what the rest of Psalm 49 was lamenting and making a point about. The Psalmist writes in verses 6-9: …those who trust in their wealth boast of the abundance of their riches? Truly, no ransom avails for one’s life, there is no price one can give to God for it. For the ransom of life is costly, and can never suffice, that one should live on forever and never see the grave.  These verses highlight a stark reality (and something these prosperity preachers seem to overlook): no amount of earthly wealth can purchase eternal life or prevent the inevitable decay of death. Human riches, no matter how vast, are powerless in the face of the ultimate cost of redemption. As Christians, this message resonates deeply with our understanding of salvation through Christ’s sacrifice. The Cost of Redemption The Psalmist’s lament about the futility of relying on wealth for redemption points to a universal human condition: the insufficiency of human efforts to secure eternal life. The idea that “no ransom avails for one’s life, there is no price one can give to God for it.” (v.7) highlights that redemption is beyond human capacity and ability. The price is too high, and no payment is ever enough to achieve eternal life or to avoid corruption. This recognition of human limitation prepares us to appreciate the magnitude of Christ's redemptive work. Christ as Our Ransom In the New Testament, we see the fulfilment of what the Psalmist longed for—the provision of a ransom that could truly redeem us. Jesus Christ, through His life, death, and resurrection, became the ultimate ransom for humanity. Mark 10:45 tells us, “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” This declaration by Jesus Himself reveals the purpose of His mission: to pay the price we could not. The concept of ransom in the New Testament is deeply connected to the idea of liberation from sin and death. The Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 2:5-6 states, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all…”. Jesus’s sacrifice was the only sufficient payment for our sins, satisfying the demands of divine justice and reconciling us with God. The Incorruptible Inheritance The Psalmist’s concern that no payment is ever enough “that one should live on forever and never see the Pit” (v.9) is answered in the resurrection of Jesus. By rising from the dead, Jesus demonstrated His victory over corruption and death, offering us the hope of eternal life. Paul highlights this in one of his sermons, in Acts 13:35-37, by using another Psalm that speaks of Jesus not seeing “the pit” or corruption in the grave: “You will not let your Holy One experience corruption” (cf. Ps 16:10). Peter also writes in 1 Peter 1:18-19, "You know that you were ransomed from the futile conduct inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” Our inheritance through Christ is incorruptible, secured not by perishable wealth but by His imperishable sacrifice. Living in the Light of Redemption As Christians, understanding that our redemption is secured by Christ’s sacrifi...