This is a short seminar paper presented May 2010 as part of my theological studies. The brief was to discuss a doctrinal topic that, with the supplied questions, would create discussion and debate in a small-group scenario. Thus the below could be used as a small-group resource:
The Cross: The Ransom View of the Atonement
Jesus’ death upon the cross is central to the Christian faith because it accomplished a work that reconciles us to God.1 Jesus’ last word before He died was tetelesai, usually translated “It is finished”, which should be understood “The work is accomplished – there is nothing left to do”.2 Since those beautiful words were uttered much thought has been given to precisely how the Cross could reconcile us to God. This paper shall explore a view of the atonement that was enormously popular for the first thousand years of Christianity.3
In the 2nd century, the Greek patristic writer Irenaeus argued that the death of Christ was to be regarded as a ransom and, particularly, one completed without force so that justice would be observed.4 His argument maintained the tradition that Adam had, through his sin, sold humanity into slavery to Satan and thus Satan’s dominion over man was just.5 Jesus’ death was offered as payment for the captives – an offer Satan accepted ensuring justice was done – but death could not hold a sinless person and, having given up his “rights” over sinners, Satan was left empty-handed.6 This idea became known as the ransom view.
Elements of this idea can be supported by Scripture: Jesus understood that his life would be given as a ransom for many7 – a view echoed by the Apostles Peter8 and Paul;9 and Paul speaks of all Christians being purchased at a price,10 yet the legal aspects came from tradition. The weak scriptural support together with its lack of detail (why the cross? Why not in some other manner?)11 is why some theologians refuse to call it a theory of atonement.12
Origen asked to whom the ransom had been paid, but his conclusion that the payment had to be made to the devil (since it was he who was holding sinners to ransom)13 was not seriously challenged for a millennia until Anselm of Canterbury critiqued the idea to devastating effect. Anselm rightly argued that Satan was an outlaw and could never have a just claim, and that Satan’s subjugation of us was illegal therefore God was under no obligation to pay a ransom.14 Though the ransom view was replaced by Anselm’s satisfaction view it still has much to offer as a picture of a deeply mysterious event rather than an actual history.
Recently the ransom view has regained some popularity through Aulén15 who believed that the central idea of the atonement was divine conflict: Christus Victor fought against and triumphed over the evil powers to which mankind was enslaved and through Him God reconciled the world to Himself.16 This reworking of the ransom view adds perspective to the work of the cross in a way that no other theory of atonement is able because it emphasises a universe at civil war. At the cross Jesus struck a mortal blow to the enemy and Christians continue the ‘mop-up’ operation living behind enemy lines until parousia, the second coming of Christ. Cullmann ingeniously uses D-Day and VE-Day to analogise this period17 – Christians living within it face stiff resistance and so Cullman’s analogy provides a reasonable explanation to the difficulties one experiences in supplicative prayer, the now-and-not-yet of the kingdom, despite a defeated enemy.
A significant weakness with both versions of the ransom view is that humanity is presented as an innocent captive whose primary need is liberation from Satan, despite the weight of scripture indicating that our greatest enemy is our sinful nature18 – we are not just in bondage to and in need of liberation from Satan, but we are wilfully rebellious, negligent, weak and in need of inner transformation – repentance, specifically of our own sinful nature, must be the precursor to belief.
In conclusion we should remember scripture does not give complete revelation on this topic. All theories of the atonement offer insight, different emphases and, often, unique perspectives on a deeply mysterious event: no theory can claim to be the theory that explains it in entirety. The ransom view’s strength is in its expression of Christ’s victory over Satan and our subsequent liberation, but the view misrepresents humanity’s responsibility for its present state and so permits a diluted idea of repentance. While this view has much to offer in our understanding of the cross, without other theories it presents an incomplete view of the atonement.
Discussion Questions
1. What is your response when you experience difficulties in supplicative prayer? How might the Christus Victor view affect your response?
2. What implications are there for our understanding of the cross if one agrees that no theory of atonement can explain the cross in its entirety?
3. Imagine what motivations the patristic writers may have had in coming up with the ransom view? Discuss whether it is fair to suggest human nature may have played a part in its formation because the view finds blame in someone else for the state for the world, in this case Satan, rather than looking at sinful human nature?
4. The ransom view suggests that Satan did not understand that death could not hold Jesus. Did God deceive Satan? What justification is there to God withholding knowledge of the consequences of Satan accepting the ransom payment?
5. Gregory the Great suggests that Satan was not even aware of Christ’s divinity when Jesus was on earth. Consider Jesus’ interactions with Satan in scripture – is a reasonable suggestion for Gregory to make?
6. There is a suggestion that Christus Victor became popular because it tapped into our fear of a malevolent force (particularly prevalent during the world wars of the early 20th century) and that Christ the Victor has overcome that force. Are you drawn to any view of the atonement above others? Why is this? Take into account your personal, geo- and socio-political environment.
7. Is the idea of Jesus battling with Satan a reasonable one given that Jesus is God and Satan is merely a fallen angel? Would Jesus have to limit himself in some way to even up the fight or are there other factors to consider?
Footnotes
1. Romans 5v10
2. Tom Smail, Windows on the Cross (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1995), 79.
3. Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor, 2nd ed. (London: SPCK, 1970), 6.
4. Irenaeus, adversus haerese, V.i.1; in Sources chretiennes vol. 153, ed. A. Rousseau, L. Doutreleau, and C. Mercier (Paris: Editions de Cerf, 1979), 18.19-20.20.
5. Alister McGrath, ed., The Christian Theology Reader, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2001), 328.
6. Robin Collins, Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theory, http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Philosophical%20Theology/Atonement/AT7.HTM, (accessed 26-Mar-2010)
7. Matthew 20v28, Mark 10v45
8. 1 Peter 1v18
9. 1 Timothy 2v6
10. 1 Corinthians 6v20
11. Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 4th ed. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 337.
12. Ibid, 334.
13. Ibid
14. Collins, Understanding Atonement.
15. McGrath, Christian Theology, 336.
16. Aulen, Christus Victor, 20.
17. Oscar Cullmann, Christ in Time, 3rd ed., (London: Bradford & Dickens, 1962), 84.
18. Galatians 5v16-25; 1 Peter 2v11
Bibliography
Aulen, Gustaf. Christus Victor. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1970.
Collins, Robin. Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theory. http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Philosophical%20Theology/Atonement/AT7.HTM (accessed 26-Mar-2010)
Cullmann, Oscar. Christ in Time. 3rd ed. London: Bradford & Dickens, 1962.
Irenaeus. adversus haerese, V.i.1; in Sources chretiennes vol. 153, ed. A. Rousseau, L. Doutreleau, and C. Mercier. Paris: Editions de Cerf, 1979.
McGrath, Alister. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
McGrath, Alister, ed. The Christian Theology Reader. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2001.
Smail, Tom. Windows on the Cross. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1995.