ransom or substitutionary atonement?

[Open Heart]

The understanding of what Christ did for us on the Cross has changed over time. The early Church had no concept of substitutionary atonement, but saw it as ransom (ransom is mentioned four times in the NT, substitionary atonement is never mentioned). The idea of substitutionary atonement is reasoned out later in Church history.

Which view do you think is more accurate and why? Or do you take a third view?

Pope Benedict wrote a book on the subject which although it doesn't repudiate the atonement, is a rather "post-atonement" sort of book. I have never been able to understand his idea. If any other Catholic can condense it for me, I would deeply appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't see this as necessarily an either/or situation and have no difficulty embracing both views.

 

[Hank77]

Which view do you think is more accurate and why?

Ransom

(ransom is mentioned four times in the NT, substitionary atonement is never mentioned

Partially because of what you have stated here.
Even in the OT, God is referred to as our Redeemer and we can see that a redeemer is one who buys, redeems, something for themselves.
Psa_19:14 Let the sayings of my mouth, And the meditation of my heart, Be for a pleasing thing before Thee, O Jehovah, my rock, and my redeemer!

Rth_4:6 And the redeemer saith, `I am not able to redeem it for myself, lest I destroy mine inheritance; redeem for thyself--thou--my right of redemption, for I am not able to redeem.'
Rth_4:8 And the redeemer saith to Boaz, `Buy it for thyself,' and draweth off his sandal.

And Boaz did buy/redeem Ruth as her kinsman redeemer through her relationship to Naomi.

 

[Open Heart]

Personally, although I take no strong opinion, I do have problems with the idea that God would punish an innocent, which is what you get in atonement theology.

 

[Hank77]

I do have problems with the idea that God would punish an innocent, which is what you get in atonement theology.

How so?

 

[Open Heart]

How so?

What do you mean how so? It is innately unjust to punish an innocent. What would you think if your father had said to you, "Hank, your sister was just wicked when she told that lie! For that lie, I'm now going to spank YOU." In what justice system ever do we let an innocent be punished in the place of the guilty? None! Anyhow, Like I said I have no strong opinion on this; it's just me thinking.

 

[Hank77]

What do you mean how so? It is innately unjust to punish an innocent. What would you think if your father had said to you, "Hank, your sister was just wicked when she told that lie! For that lie, I'm now going to spank YOU." In what justice system ever do we let an innocent be punished in the place of the guilty? None! Anyhow, Like I said I have no strong opinion on this; it's just me thinking.

I meant how does atonement theology = punishment of the innocent?

 

[bling]

The understanding of what Christ did for us on the Cross has changed over time. The early Church had no concept of substitutionary atonement, but saw it as ransom (ransom is mentioned four times in the NT, substitionary atonement is never mentioned). The idea of substitutionary atonement is reasoned out later in Church history.

Which view do you think is more accurate and why? Or do you take a third view?

Pope Benedict wrote a book on the subject which although it doesn't repudiate the atonement, is a rather "post-atonement" sort of book. I have never been able to understand his idea. If any other Catholic can condense it for me, I would deeply appreciate it. Thanks.

The subject you are addressing is huge since books have been written on it with lots of different conclusions; mostly due to the preconceived ideas of the authors.

We can work on this together and draw our own most likely alternative interpretation that will be very biblical, consistent and logical.

To begin with:


During the time of Christ, the Jewish people in and around Jerusalem would have had a much better understanding of atonement since atonement sacrifices were going on every hour at the temple, maybe thousands each day. All mature adults would have most likely participated in the individual process of atonement, but this was only for unintentional sins (really minor sins) since intentional sins had no Old Testament system for atonement.


Those only able to afford a bag of flour (Lev. 5) certainly would not have considered that bag of flour to be a “substitute” for them. There is nothing to suggest the Jewish people ever thought of any sacrifices to be substitutes for them. So what did they experience in this atonement process for unintentional sins? If we could relate to their atonement experience for “minor” sins we might be able to extrapolate to what the atonement process would be like for intentional sins? (Read Lev. 5)


Forgiveness for unintentional sins came after the completion of the atonement process (Lev. 5), but did God need a bag of flour to forgive the person’s sins?


Would God need anything to forgive a person’s sins or is it the person needing something to accept that forgiveness as pure charity?


Is Christ Crucified described by Paul, Peter, Jesus, John and the Hebrew writer as a ransom type payment?


I find the ransom analogy to be an excellent fit and I am not talking about the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”


Ransom analogy as those in the first century might understand it (it was well known Caesura at 21 had been kidnapped and a ransom paid for him):


1. Someone other than the captive paying the ransom.

2. The payment is a huge sacrificial payment for the payer, who would personally prefer not to pay.

3. Since those that come to God must come as children, it is the children of God that go to the Father.

4. The payer cannot safely or for some other reason get his children any other way than making the payment.

5. The kidnapper is totally undeserving.

6. The kidnapper can accept or reject the payment.



Go to Luke 15: 11-32 the prodigal son story to illustrate:


Who in the middle of the night snuck in and dragged off the young son, force the son to do evil stuff and finally chained him to a pigsty starving to death? (this is not the way it happened, but the child of the father was kidnapped.)


Who returned to the father, was it the son that rebelliously wished his father’s death so he could get his inheritance or was it the child of the father?


We can only come to our Father as children, so who is keeping the nonbeliever in the unbelieving state (the kidnapper)?


There is the one ransom, but could there be many kidnappers and many children?


Who are the kidnappers?


Looking at verses in particular:


(NIV) Ro. 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—


“God presented” this might be better expressed as “God is offering” since it will later be received, not received or rejected on the contingency of some kind of “faith”. Instead of received it might better be translated as accepted (with the option of being rejected or not accepted).

“Sacrifice of atonement” is described by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer as the “ransom payment” or just “ransom”. So God is offering a ransom payment to be accepted by those with faith or rejected by those refusing or just not accepted by those lacking faith.


A huge part of that ransom payment that especially applies to those that are already Christians is the life giving cleansing blood of Christ. Christ and God would have personally preferred that blood remained in Christ’s veins, but I needed it given up by Christ to flow over both my outside and my heart to know, experience, “trust” and feel I am cleansed and made alive. So Christ willingly gave up His blood for me and because of me. This is an overwhelming tragedy I insisted on to believe: I was made holy, righteous and stand justified. Without knowing and feeling this blood flowing over my heart, I might question my cleansing?


“Demonstrate his righteousness” God did not become righteous, but just showed the righteousness He has always had. (God’s justice/ holiness/being right) comes with the atoning sacrifice that includes the life giving cleansing blood showing God’s righteousness/justice in a very particular way; by resolving the huge problem that existed under the Old Covenant. That huge problem in the Old Covenant was with the handling of intentional sins that where committed, repented of, and which the individual sought forgiveness from God for doing (and God forgave without justly disciplining the sinner [thus not showing His righteousness through His disciplining]). These sins could be forgiven by God, but there was no way to fairly/justly discipline (punish) the sinner and still have the sinner live in the Promised Land. God did have fair/just punishments (discipline) for these sins, but the Jews could not follow through with them, since all Jews deserved to be treated similarly (there would be no one left in the Promised Land).


“in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” Instead of “unpunished” I would translate that Greek word to be “undisciplined”.

“because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”, shows the contrast between before and after the cross. This is not saying: “before the cross sins are now being punished by Christ going to the cross”, but is say they were left unpunished prior to the cross. If they are being handled the “same way” as sins after the cross there would be no contrast? (And there are lots of other problems with this reasoning.) There is no “punishment” (disciplining for intentional sins) before the cross and there is “punishment” (disciplining of God’s children) with the cross.


Any good parent realizes the need for not just forgiving their rebellious disobedient child, but to also see to the child’s fair/just/loving discipline if at all possible, but under the Old Covenant there was no “fair/just/loving discipline” so God could not show His justice/righteousness except to point out in the Law what really should happen, but that is not “good” disciplining, the child can almost feel they got away with something.


By my coming to the realization of my forcing Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, because of my personal sins I experience a death blow to my heart (Acts 2: 37) the worst possible experience I can have and still live (That is also the most sever disciplining I can experience and still live). Thus I know God is my loving concerned Parent (since He at great cost has seen to my disciplining). I know how significant my sins really are; I can put those sins behind me after being disciplined. Since God and Jesus shared in my disciplining “I am crucified with Christ” (a teaching moment) our relationship is even greater than before my transgressing.

What is the benefit/value for us that we would want to accept the ransom payment of Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder?

What value benefit did it have for those 3000 on the day of Pentecost?

Would those 3000 have become baptized believers on the day of Pentecost if Peter had not been able to say: Acts 2:36 “…this Jesus whom you crucified”?

So for those 3000, their crucifying Christ (ransom payment/atoning sacrifice) resulted in them becoming baptized believers on the day of Pentecost! Did it have value for them?


This will get us started if you really want to know.

 

[Open Heart]

What a killer post! I read it slowly to really sap all that I could out of it. I agreed with much of it, though not all. In particular I disagree with the notion that things worked differently before the cross than after. After the cross we simply understood how things worked a lot better. But God's grace worked backwards as well as forwards in time.

The crux of the difference for me between the ransom motif and the atonement motif is this:

In the ransom motif, God is the good guy. A terrible kidnapper (satan, our sinful nature) has taken hold of us, and will not release us without the payment due. God sends his son to pay that ransom at great personal cost.

In the atonement motif, God is the monster. He allows an innocent victim to suffer and die unjustly in place of the guilty. Only this unimaginable suffering of the innocent one will appease His bloodthirsty twisted sense of justice.

I have a hard time with that!!!!

 

[Hank77]

In the atonement motif, God is the monster. He allows an innocent victim to suffer and die unjustly in place of the guilty. Only this unimaginable suffering of the innocent one will appease His bloodthirsty twisted sense of justice.

I have a hard time with that!!!!

Me, too.

 

[bbbbbbb]

So, on a related note, is Jesus Christ the Lamb of God or the Good Shepherd of His sheep?

 

[Open Heart]

So, on a related note, is Jesus Christ the Lamb of God or the Good Shepherd of His sheep?

You are going to need to articulate exactly how you think that is related.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are going to need to articulate exactly how you think that is related.

Okay, if Jesus Christ is the lamb of God, then He was pure and innocent and punished by God for the sins of the world. If He is not, then we can dismiss the whole idea of a substitutionary atonement. If He is the Shepherd of His flock, then he has redeemed His flock. If He is not, then we can dismiss the idea of redemption.

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

The early Church had no concept of substitutionary atonement, but saw it as ransom

Really? The early church had no concept of substitutionary atonement? What about:

Clement of Rome?​

"He bears our iniquities, and is in sorrow for our sakes; yet we supposed that [on His own account] He was exposed to labour, and stripes, and affliction. But He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we were healed. All we, like sheep, have gone astray; [every] man has wandered in his own way; and the Lord has delivered Him up for our sins [...] For the transgressions of my people was He brought down to death. [...] If you make an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long- lived seed [...] and He Himself shall carry their sins. On this account He shall inherit many, and shall divide the spoil of the strong; because His soul was delivered to death, and He was reckoned among the transgressors, and He bore the sins of many, and for their sins was He delivered."
​

Justin Martyr?

"But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God."
​

Eusebius of Caesarea?

"Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf [...] And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us."​

Hilary of Poitiers?

"Thus He offered Himself to the death of the accursed that He might break the curse of the Law, offering Himself voluntarily a victim to God the Father, in order that by means of a voluntary victim the curse which attended the discontinuance of the regular victim might be removed."​

Athanasius?

"He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father [...] He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required."​

Gregory Nazianzus?

"That as for my sake He was called a curse, Who destroyed my curse; and sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ also is called disobedient on my account."​

Ambrose of Milan?

"He also took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgment, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death."​

John Chrysostom?

"If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son (who was himself of no such character), that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation; and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude?"​

Augustine?

"But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment."​

Gelasius of Cyzicus?

"But he, the Saviour of all, came and received the punishments which were due to us into his sinless flesh, which was of us, in place of us, and on our behalf."​

Gregory the Great?

"And of Him it is rightly added, without cause. For ‘he was destroyed without cause,’ who was at once weighed to the earth by the avenging of sin, and not defiled by the pollution of sin. He ‘was destroyed without cause,’ Who, being made incarnate, had no sins of His own, and yet being without offence took upon Himself the punishment of the carnal." ​

 

[Tangible]

To the thread title: Yes.

Better: Both.

 

[Hank77]

If I remember correctly, in C.S. Lewis' book, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe , the ransom is played out. Ansul, ransoms himself to the White Witch, in exchange for the boy Edmund who had fallen under the power of the White Witch. Ansul is not giving his life to pay a penal debt for Edmund's wrong doings, but to rescue Edmund from the evil that has power over him.

If I had not been ransomed I would remain under the power of evil/sin and therefore suffer the consequence which is death.

 

[Open Heart]

Okay, if Jesus Christ is the lamb of God, then He was pure and innocent and punished by God for the sins of the world. If He is not, then we can dismiss the whole idea of a substitutionary atonement. If He is the Shepherd of His flock, then he has redeemed His flock. If He is not, then we can dismiss the idea of redemption.

In Jewish atonement sacrifice, the lamb or goat or whatever is not a substitute for the sinner. It is not being punished by God. Rather, an atonement sacrifice is an act of love toward God. There is nothing substitutionary about it, no "take this INSTEAD OF me" about it.

 

[Open Heart]

Really? The early church had no concept of substitutionary atonement?

You don't seem to have the same notion of what substitutionary atonement means. We are contrasting "Ransom" atonement of the Early Church with the "Penal" atonement of Anselm (which later became known by reformers as substitutionary atonement). Here is the summary of both theologies as given by wikipedia:

Ransom and Christus Victor theory[edit]
Main articles: Ransom theory of atonement and Christus Victor
The ransom and Christus Victor theories present Jesus as dying to overcome (supernatural) powers of sin and evil. In this model, the devil has ownership over humanity (because they have sinned) so Jesus dies in their place to free them. The doctrine is that Jesus gave himself as a ransom sacrifice in behalf of the people. (Matthew 20:28) This is known as the oldest of the theories of the atonement,[7][8] and is, in some form, still, along with the doctrine of theosis, the Eastern Orthodox Church's main theory of the atonement.

Satisfaction and penal substitution[edit]
Main articles: Satisfaction theory of atonement and Penal substitution
The widest held substitutionary theory in the West is the penal substitution model. Both the penal theory and Anselm's satisfaction theory hold that only human beings can rightfully repay the debt (to God's honour [Anselm], or to God's justice [penal substitution]) which was incurred through their wilful disobedience to God. Since only God can make the satisfaction necessary to repay it, therefore God sent the God-man, Jesus Christ, to fulfil both these conditions.[9] Christ is a sacrifice by God on behalf of humanity, taking humanity’s debt for sin upon himself, and propitiating God’s wrath.[10]

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

You don't seem to have the same notion of what substitutionary atonement means. We are contrasting "Ransom" atonement of the Early Church with the "Penal" atonement of Anselm (which later became known by reformers as substitutionary atonement).

I am fully aware of the distinction between ransom and penal substitutionary atonement. I was simply making the case that both theories, like it or not, existed among the Church Fathers and within the early church.

 

[Berean777]

It is actually a bail bond that was paid on the cross. The ransom was to purchase us back from he who had power over death. Satan as the false accuser had the power of coercion to make all of us condemned to death because of the written law. God saw his blood on the cross would silence that accusation for ever. This transaction of God's blood for buying us back from Satan is the ultimate ransom paid in full as the bail bond.

Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.