It was reported in the news cycle a short while ago that the British Embassy in Iran came under fire, and similarities were drawn as memories were taken back to the capture of American embassy workers years ago. Those captured embassy workers were held captive for over a year. I thought about this recently as I was asked if I felt that biblical texts concerning a ransom being paid should be taken literally. It we are supposed to take that sort of idea literally, then to whom was the ransom paid? In other words, to whom was God Himself beholden?
My short answer is an emphatic yes, a ransom was literally paid. I can say that with confidence and still completely deny that God was beholden to anyone. How can I say that without contradicting myself? I'm so glad you asked.
ransom - 1. the redemption of a prisoner, slave, or kidnapped person, or captured goods, etc. for a price. 2. the sum or price paid or demanded. 3. a means of deliverance or rescue from punishment for sin, esp. the payment of a redemptive fine. 4. to redeem from captivity, bondage, detention, etc. by paying a demanded price. 5. to release or restore on receipt of a ransom. 6. to deliver or redeem from punishment for sin.
The reason that there is no contradiction with holding to a literal ransom is that the idea that we are held hostage by another party and that the only thing God can do is pay them off for our release is not accurate and is not the only usage of the term ransom, and therefore simply does not apply. What is clear from scripture is that sin leads to death. God tells Adam and Eve in the Garden that in the day they eat of the fruit they will surely die. We are told explicitly that the wages of sin is death. We are told that all men, all women are sinners, whose hearts are desperately wicked, incapable of any good thing, that we are all of us slaves to sin. We are told that God's wrath is against all those who sin.
What is explicitly clear in scripture is that we have a gravely serious problem, namely that we are deserving to have the wrath of God levied against us (and rightfully so by our volitional disobedience and life contrary to the purpose for which we were created) as those who are slaves to sin. We are enemies of God and can do nothing about it ourselves. God's Justice and Holiness demands that this wrong be made right. To suggest that God simply overlooks our acts is to deny His perfect Justice and Holiness. But isn't God supposed to be Loving and Gracious and Merciful?
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance - now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (Hebrews 9:15)
One would rightly read the above passage and ask, "For what reason?" When Christ came as high priest o the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle taht is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God. (Hebrews 9:11-14). Jesus died, His body broken, His blood shed to deliver, rescue, redeem us from the punishment of sin we deserve. Death is the wages of sin, and death was the price to redeem. Christ paid that price, and therefore was literally a ransom for us so that we might have the spirit of sonship, an eternal inheritance. The bible describes what we already know, that there is no greater love than if one lay down his life for another; especially if the life is laid down for those who are enemies. God is Love.
To say that Christ was not a ransom because God couldn't remain God while being required to pay someone else off to buy us back is foolishness because it is a complete misunderstanding and misreading of the clear and explicit teaching of scripture. To deny that Christ died, or that His blood was shed for efficacious reasons is to diminish His Grace and Love as well as His Righteousness, Justice and Holiness. Is the situation exactly like a hostage situation, no, but Christ literally gave His life as a ransom just the same. In short, where the Bible is clear and explicit we need not seek after some other meaning. It is enough to acknowledge the fullness of the Truth, not suppress it, and be forever grateful and determined to live a life wholly committed to glorifying God who is perfectly Holy, Just, Righteous, Gracious, Merciful and Loving based on His Sovereignty and how much He loved us while we were yet in our sins.
I came up against this question earlier this year. I researched it in Scripture and in history and found some interesting things. Most obviously, the concept of the Atonement in Church history has been subject to some serious heresy. (Surprise, surprise!) The standard view, however, has been that Christ clearly paid the ransom (as opposed to a more popular "No, no ransom was paid. God just let it go.").
ReplyDeleteWhat cannot be avoided is 1) a debt was owed, 2) God's justice demanded that the debt be paid, and 3) Christ paid that debt (because we cannot). Anything that doesn't include all three components is a serious problem.
Good word, Jeremy. I would add that we know Jesus was our ransom because He said so Himself: "For even the Son of Man came not be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many." Mark 10:45. The word Jesus Himself used for ransom literally means "loosed, or delivered." The ransom price of Jesus' blood delivered many from sin and from death. Interesting sidenote, that Jesus said "many" not "all." Jesus was clearly not a universalist!
ReplyDeleteStan,
ReplyDeleteIt seems we run into a lot of the same issues. Your three components surely cannot be avoided if one reads scripture plainly. Unfortunately things that are clear and explicit are confused in favor of what sounds "better". As you said, no surprise there.
Mark,
Thanks for writing in. It was interesting that the question about ransom came during the embassy attack because many people hear ransom and their mind immediately goes to a hostage situation. I suppose it's natural, but an unfortunate and wildly inaccurate conclusion that doesn't hold up to the "whole council of God".
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteHis blood shed to deliver, rescue, redeem us from the punishment of sin we deserve. Death is the wages of sin, and death was the price to redeem. Christ paid that price, and therefore was literally a ransom for us
So, to WHOM was the ransom paid?
And who was demanding the ransom be paid?
Did God pay a ransom to God, is that what you think?
What did the transaction look like?
I'm not sure you've got an accurate understanding of the word "literal."
And whose definition are you using there?
Here's the standard English definition found in Merriam Webster...
a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity
Not knocking your analysis, just pointing out that you're speaking of a FIGURATIVE use of the word, ransom, not a literal one.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"So, to WHOM was the ransom paid?
And who was demanding the ransom be paid?"
Reply: The point of the post was to clearly state that ransom does not equal "hostage situation."
Dan wrote:
"Did God pay a ransom to God, is that what you think?
What did the transaction look like?"
Reply: God is perfectly Holy and Righteous. When man decided to play God, it was God that was violated - hence the scripture referenced "The wages of sin is death." For God's justice, holiness and righteousness to be satisfied His wrath had to be poured out. You, me and every other human being deserve that end - bearing the full brunt of God's wrath. We can do nothing to assuage the death we deserve.
But God, in His Sovereignty, made a way for the atonement of sins. Particularly, literally, a perfect sacrifice once for all. What does that look like - exactly like Christ hanging on a cross. Literally being beaten and spat upon, being brutalized with a scourging and a crown of thorns, being nailed to a tree and being the object of God's wrath.
I do know what literal means, the same thing it does to you. Christ literally paid the price we could not and it not just looked like a sacrifice, it was exactly the reality of Christ Jesus offering Himself to be sacrificed on the cross. Not as a hostage for God to pay someone else off for our freedom, but to satisfy what was required based on God's character of Holiness and Righteousness. Ransom - to redeem from bondage by paying a demanded price.
This is the orthodox evangelical view and is consistent with a clear reading of scripture. It also maintains the fullness of God's character which also follows from a clear reading of scripture. This understanding also provides a cogent and consistent reading of the Old and New Testament passages on sacrifice being established and accepted by God for atonement of sins (Leviticus 1:1-4; Hebrews 9). God is perfectly Holy and Righteous so sin is not overlooked, but God is perfectly Gracious and Merciful and so provided a Way for those whom He loved while they were yet in their sins.
I just don't understand why you would have a problem accepting what is so clearly written in scripture and provides a consistent explanation of the fullness of God's character, an accurate explanation of our state, and an absolutely awesome description and living out of God's amazing Grace toward you and toward me. You are asserting this is not a correct understanding because the only definition of ransom you recognize is one of hostage and all sacrificial language related to salvation is allegorical. That just doesn't seem to hold up.
I don't have a problem accepting what was written. What I have a problem with is bad exegesis (or worse, eisegesis) and less than graceful treatment of our brothers and sisters in Christ.
ReplyDeleteYou say...
Not as a hostage for God to pay someone else off for our freedom, but to satisfy what was required based on God's character of Holiness and Righteousness. Ransom - to redeem from bondage by paying a demanded price.
So then you appear to be saying that Jesus is NOT a LITERAL ransom, in the standard English definition, but rather that word is SYMBOLIC to stand for Jesus taking a punishment that God wanted to give to us - that God "HAD" to give to somebody - and so Jesus took our punishment.
Much more closely to a LITERAL scapegoat (and even there, not literal, but symbolic) than an actual literal ransom, right?
And my point in all of this is to point out that we ALL recognize that SOME of these texts are symbolic, not literal. You, yourself, are using a SYMBOLIC, FIGURATIVE reading of ransom, and rightly so, I'd say.
The point is, we ALL agree that each word is not literal and we ALL interpret some words more symbolically than others.
You want to take ransom figuratively (well, actually, you SAY you want to take it literally, but then the definition you're providing is not a literal English definition, but a symbolic one) but you castigate those who want to take GRACE literally, but "blood sacrifice" symbolically.
I'm just trying to suggest that we're both doing some figurative reading and I see no reason to take the "blood sacrifice" language any more literally than you're taking the "ransom" language.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteDisagreeing with you and saying that I don't understand how you can hold to the position you profess and be consistent throughout scripture is not the same as castigating you. I am not cursing you or demeaning you or trying to make you look foolish in a public forum. I don't understand how you could take my comments as castigating. I amended my comments to you twice just in my last response for the express purpose of being as reasonable and kind in my response as possible so there wouldn't be any sense of belittlement or quarreling attitude coming through. I'm sorry you are reading my responses in some other way.
Perhaps you can explain what is not literal about the following:
1) Ransom is defined as to redeem from bondage by paying a demanded price.
2) Sin is bondage to death where sacrifice is required as the demanded price.
3) Man is guilty of sin and cannot provide the price of sacrifice required.
4) Christ offered Himself willingly as the sacrifice to pay the price we could not to redeem us from the bondage we are in.
Notice I didn't ask if you agree with all four point in my argument, just what is not literal about it.