Ransomed
As will become clear, the difficulty in looking at the atonement is not that any one theory is really bad, but that all of them are insufficient. No one theory can do justice what occurred because human language is insufficient to adequately describe it. The first of the various ways believers have looked at the atonement is as a ransom. This is sometimes called the classical theory of atonement. The term "classical" theory stems from the fact that the early church fathers used ransom language far more than any other in describing Christ's death. This remained the predominant view of atonement until the middle ages when it was subjected to withering criticism.
In the pages of scripture there is no lack of warrant for looking at the atonement as a ransom that was paid on our behalf. The term "ransom" is used seven times to refer to what God/Jesus does for us. The related term "redeem" or "redeemer" is found over ninety times. Both terms offer a glimpse of what is going on according to this theory. They both convey the notion of something (or someone) being bought back from a third party. In very, very, very simplified terms we as humans are by nature in bondage to sin/death. We are captives if you will. Christ is offered as a ransom on our behalf and the Devil eagerly jumps on the deal. When Jesus rose from the dead however, he took a host of captives that he had freed when he ascended, using language from Ephesians 4.
The C.S. Lewis classic, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, has a good illustration of this. If you're familiar with the story you'll remember that the younger Pevensey son, Edmund is duped by the evil white witch into betraying his siblings. Edmund is freed, but because of his treachery he remains a possession of the witch until an innocent (the great lion Aslan) is offered as a ransom. In thumbing through a hymnal you won't find a shortage of hymns that use ransom/redeem language. When one expands it to include the related concept of resurrection as victory over sin/death/hell, the list becomes staggering: "The Strife Is O'er, The Battle Done," "Thine is the Glory," "Praise My Soul the King of Heaven," "Up From the Grave He Arose," and the list goes on and on.
This theory has much to commend it. First, it acknowledges that human sin is a condition and not simply a collection of misdeeds on our part. Second, it does allow for the importance of resurrection, particularly when paired with the Christus Victor concept to be mentioned in another post. Third, some of the more beautiful scripture passages use this language: "you were ransomed...with the precious blood of Christ," from 1 Peter 1; or from Isaiah 43, "fear not for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine," in speaking to Israel. Lastly, it allows us to connect our deliverance from sin/death with the great deliverance themes of the Old Testament.
As mentioned above, this theory has had its share of critics. In particular, during the middle ages theologians Peter Abelard and Anself of Canterbury both took it apart so to speak. It is open to criticism on a couple of major fronts. At a theoretical level, one must ask, to whom was the ransom paid? The early church fathers were split on this. If the ransom was paid to the Devil we are putting God in the position of bargaining with the Devil, as if God were in some way indebted to him. Furthermore, if Jesus is offered as the ransom knowing that resurrection will be the outcome, one could argue that God had deceivd the Devil.
Despite the numerous theoretical difficulties with this theory, it is one we cannot dismiss because it does take a big view of sin and does account for the resurrection. Furthermore, for those who've felt in bondage this can be very reassuring, because it speaks of deliverance and freedom in a way that other theories cannot.
In the pages of scripture there is no lack of warrant for looking at the atonement as a ransom that was paid on our behalf. The term "ransom" is used seven times to refer to what God/Jesus does for us. The related term "redeem" or "redeemer" is found over ninety times. Both terms offer a glimpse of what is going on according to this theory. They both convey the notion of something (or someone) being bought back from a third party. In very, very, very simplified terms we as humans are by nature in bondage to sin/death. We are captives if you will. Christ is offered as a ransom on our behalf and the Devil eagerly jumps on the deal. When Jesus rose from the dead however, he took a host of captives that he had freed when he ascended, using language from Ephesians 4.
The C.S. Lewis classic, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, has a good illustration of this. If you're familiar with the story you'll remember that the younger Pevensey son, Edmund is duped by the evil white witch into betraying his siblings. Edmund is freed, but because of his treachery he remains a possession of the witch until an innocent (the great lion Aslan) is offered as a ransom. In thumbing through a hymnal you won't find a shortage of hymns that use ransom/redeem language. When one expands it to include the related concept of resurrection as victory over sin/death/hell, the list becomes staggering: "The Strife Is O'er, The Battle Done," "Thine is the Glory," "Praise My Soul the King of Heaven," "Up From the Grave He Arose," and the list goes on and on.
This theory has much to commend it. First, it acknowledges that human sin is a condition and not simply a collection of misdeeds on our part. Second, it does allow for the importance of resurrection, particularly when paired with the Christus Victor concept to be mentioned in another post. Third, some of the more beautiful scripture passages use this language: "you were ransomed...with the precious blood of Christ," from 1 Peter 1; or from Isaiah 43, "fear not for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine," in speaking to Israel. Lastly, it allows us to connect our deliverance from sin/death with the great deliverance themes of the Old Testament.
As mentioned above, this theory has had its share of critics. In particular, during the middle ages theologians Peter Abelard and Anself of Canterbury both took it apart so to speak. It is open to criticism on a couple of major fronts. At a theoretical level, one must ask, to whom was the ransom paid? The early church fathers were split on this. If the ransom was paid to the Devil we are putting God in the position of bargaining with the Devil, as if God were in some way indebted to him. Furthermore, if Jesus is offered as the ransom knowing that resurrection will be the outcome, one could argue that God had deceivd the Devil.
Despite the numerous theoretical difficulties with this theory, it is one we cannot dismiss because it does take a big view of sin and does account for the resurrection. Furthermore, for those who've felt in bondage this can be very reassuring, because it speaks of deliverance and freedom in a way that other theories cannot.
Comments
Post a Comment