I think the answer to this question depends on how we understand the word ransom; is it to be understood metaphorically or literally?
1) If metaphorically, then we need not identify a payee because the NT authors never said to whom the ransom price is paid. We would be overextending the metaphor like saying, "That insight is worth a king's ransom." No one asks to whom the king's ransom is paid.
2) If literally, then it would make sense to point to the captors as the payees, after all, ransoms are paid to captors. Scripture tells us in a number of places that sin, death and the devil are the ‘forces’ that held mankind captive or in bondage. Jesus in assuming human nature vanquished these ‘forces’ on their own territory, which is the sinful flesh. The ransom or price Jesus paid was to be tortured and killed by evil men, acting as Satan's tools. The basic idea is that Jesus delivers Himself into the power of these forces so that He can vanquish these powers on their own turf, so to speak. His power proves greater than theirs. He is a conquering Hero. To use a sports analogy, Jesus is the one that we put on our shoulders and carry off the field in victory.
In 1. When you say: "That insight is worth a king's ransom." You are not saying: “the insight is a ransom payment.”
Saying “worth” is only establish the value while saying “is” means that is what it is, so saying an “insight” is a “ransom” or say My life is a “ransom for many” means there needs to be a kidnapper, a payment, and someone set free.
A lot of times Christ’s disciples took His words to be metaphors, when He was actually talking about His literal things like His cruel death. Jesus is not presenting a parable and the other writers pick up on this reality and restate it. In a ransom scenario you have: a person (mostly children) being held away from his/her home and family, the person being set free, the family paying a huge sacrificial ransom and a kidnapper(s). Christ is not the only one to describe the atonement process as a ransom scenario. Christ refers to the huge sacrificial payment. Heb. 9: 15…now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. The Hebrew writer adds the idea of the ransom being used to “set us free…” 1 Peter 1:8 “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold…” Here Peter tells who is freed and from what “
ways”, which suggests being captive to trying to do the impossible (follow the Law). John said: Revelation 5:9 “and they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation,” John is not saying the ransom was paid to God, but ransom men for God.
In 2. I agree with this: “If literally, then it would make sense to point to the captors as the payees, after all, ransoms are paid to captors”. Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
So, who are what is holding us “captive”?
There is comfort in blaming: satan, evil in the world, sin, Adam & Eve, bad luck, parents and anything or anyone else for our rebellious disobedience. Paul said: Romans 7:23 “but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.” So, who is he blaming and who should we blame?
If the captor accepts the ransom, the captor reacts (changes his/her position) and the child being held does not change but would be the same child held or released and the payer of the ransom does not change. If we say “sin, death and/or satan” is the captor, why do they not change with the payment? We know the child set free makes a huge change from being this unbelieving sinner to entering the Kingdom, so does this pre-child (the unbeliever sinner) not mimic the kidnapper?
If Christ won on the cross against sin, death and satan, why are they still around?
If Christ wins through allowing individuals to now: not fear death, have power to keep from sinning and allow individuals to be victorious over satan (through the indwelling Holy Spirit) that is changing the individual nonbelieving sinner and not sin, satan, and death. Paying a “ransom” to sin, death and satan would not change them, making them easier for man to overcome, but paying a huge ransom to the unbeliever and having the unbeliever humbly accept that ransom, would make a huge change in the unbeliever.
There are other issues also:
If the ransom cannot be accepted or rejected by individuals, but was automatically paid to: sin, death and satan than all individuals had their sins atoned for, so everyone is saved, yet we know everyone is not saved, so what happened? (provide biblical support for the specific reason of why this did not happen for all and do not just show it did not happen for all?)
There was atonement in the Old Testament, but it does not fit a payment being made to sin, death or satan?
Peter gives the best “Christ Crucified” sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2), but does not talk about this being to pay satan off. Jesus went to the cross for them and because of them, but they had to accept that fact.