The Ransom Theory

Several days ago, I posted an article dealing with the three main theories of the Atonement. As I said in that article, there are many more--too many to discuss in a brief article--and I covered the three (or perhaps four) which hold the high-ground of theological thought, the theories which are most widely held. For that reason, I did not discuss the Ransom Theory since, so far as I can tell from my reading, almost nobody actually holds it anymore and it is more of a historical curiosity than anything else. But after I posted that article, someone brought up the Ransom Theory to me and after thinking about it some, I realized that there are some very interesting aspects to it which are worth discussing as they relate to the matters we discussed in the previous article.

In Titus 2, Paul discusses the problem of slavery and advises Titus what exhortation to give the slaves, which was to live in such a way as to demonstrate Christianity even in their adverse circumstances. And his reason for this exhortation because Jesus “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” (Titus 2:14) The word “redeem” here means “to release on receipt of ransom... liberate by payment of ransom” (Thayer) This word would have been very meaningful to slaves; redemption was the price paid to set a slave free. And just so, Jesus is pictured as giving of his life as a ransom, to pay the price to set us free from the slavery of sin. (c.p. 1 Corinthians 6:20, 1 Peter 1:18) The very word we commonly use for Christ--the “Redeemer”--contains this idea, the idea of paying a price to buy someone back or a ransom to set them free.

The Ransom Theory, then, holds that the Atonement consists of the payment of a ransom, of paying the price to set men free and bring salvation. This theory is the oldest formal theory of the Atonement and probably has its origin in Origin, c. 200 AD.  However, to whom was this ransom given; to whom was this price paid? If you answer, “To God,” then the Ransom Theory is essentially the same as what I called in the previous article the “Debt Variant” and I refer the reader back to that article for a discussion of it.

However, there is another possible answer to that question and that is what makes the Ransom Theory so interesting. For the purposes of this article, I am limiting the Ransom Theory to those who believe that the ransom was paid, not to God, but to Satan.

Because man sinned, he broke allegiance from God and fell into slavery to sin (John 8:34, Romans 6:16-20)--but merely to sin, but to Satan, as the author of sin. Sinners are said to be “of the devil” (1 John 3:8) and the children of the devil (John 8:44, 1 John 3:10, Matthew 13:38). Satan is pictured as a prince, having rule over a kingdom of sin. (John 16:11, Ephesians 2:2) Because man had sinned, they belonged to Satan, just as a man who through theft or debt had been sold into slavery belonged to his master. The only way for him to be set free was if a ransom was paid; if he was bought out of slavery. And so God, to bring deliverance, made a deal with Satan--offering Jesus as a ransom; He would give up his life in exchange for the souls of all men. The Devil (being a shrewd businessman) naturally accepted. And so the contract was paid. Jesus' life was offered up. His death was enacted and His spirit descended into Hell.

But, of course, Satan may have gotten Jesus, but he couldn't keep him. The ransom was paid; the contract was fulfilled; and then Christ returned to life, bringing with him the keys of death and hell, providing salvation for all who believe.

What I find unique about this theory is that it actually gets around several of the problems I pointed out in the other theories of the atonement. Specifically, the Ransom Theory shows how a price could be paid and still leave open a choice regarding salvation. When a ransom has been paid to set someone free, are they automatically free? Legally, yes, but in practicality, no. God has paid the ransom for our souls, but if we chose to remain in bondage to Satan--if we chose not to walk through the door which God has opened for us--then that ransom has no meaning for us. And what is especially interesting is that, unlike the other theories, this theory can easily be made to include the Resurrection as an integral part of Atonement. Christ paid the ransom, but that would be meaningless unless he were still alive to make sure the Devil kept his end of the bargain. Jesus not only entered the enemy camp to pay the price but also opened the escape route by which those whose deliverance he had purchased could leave.

So have we finally found an actually workable theory of the Atonement? Certainly, this may be the most interesting theory. It is also referred to as the “Dramatic Theory” and it is certainly the most dramatic version of the Atonement. However, there is a problem--and there is a reason why, at least in theological circles, this theory is rarely given serious consideration and why even the laity tends to bulk at committing to it. There is an intrinsic objection to believing that the Atonement was specifically aimed at Satan--that Christ suffered for the sake of Satan--that the price of His blood was paid to Satan.

And I think one specific reason why this is felt as a problem is because Christ's death was a sacrifice. He was “the Lamb of God.” “Redemption” may be a commercial word, but “Atonement” is a religious word and is linked to the whole Old Testament system of sacrifices--and those sacrifices were given to God, not to Satan. (The one arguable exception is the Scapegoat; but whether the Scapegoat was given to God or Satan, it was most specifically not sacrificed but 'scaped'.) How can the death of Christ be, simultaneously, a ransom to Satan and a sacrifice to God?

And this is how we come back to what I said at the close of the other article--that the theories of Atonement fail because they try to take one aspect of the atonement, compare it to a human analogy, and call it a day. Leslie D. Wilcox comments, regarding this view: “This is one of those illustrations that are excellent at certain points, but if you attempt to press the likeness to every point, one gets into difficulty.” (Profiles in Wesleyan Theology, III:189) And I think that applies equally to the views of Abelard, Calvin, and Grotius as discussed previously. The Ransom Theory is emphatically and seriously a good “myth” of Atonement--that is to say, a picture. And it may be no coincidence that the most famous modern fictional retelling of the Atonement (Lewis' The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe) uses the Ransom Theory, though Lewis' own view of the Atonement was somewhat more complicated. It is a good picture, but it is not the whole picture and if we try to take it as the whole picture, we will end up in error.