Fundamental to the Christian faith is the idea that Jesus died for sins (1 Cor 15.3). But what does that mean?
Christians have been debating the significance of the Christ event for 2000 years and over that period at least three major theories have surfaced: the Classic (Ransom), the Satisfaction (Substitution), and the Moral Influence (Idealistic).
Over the next few posts I want to look at these three views and ask what it might mean for us that the church has been wrestling with this for 2000 years and continues to do so.
First the Classic or Ransom theory. This theory is the earliest of all and uses passages like Mark 10.45, to argue that Christ was given as a ransom for humanity. The texts do not specify to whom the ransom was paid, although most early Christian writers argued it was to Satan.
According to this theory, Adam and Eve sold humanity to the Devil when they sinned and justice required a ransom be paid to the Devil for our release. God then tricked Satan into taking Christ as a ransom, and justice was satisfied. Poor Devil gets hosed though, because Jesus resurrects, leaving him to play all by himself.
Before you write this this theory off as absurd, you must know that it was the dominant way of understanding Jesus' death for close to 1000 years, and is still held by some traditions today.
One of the problems with it is the fact that nowhere does the Bible speak about the ransom being paid to Satan (or God for that matter), so any elaboration on those passages is destined to be conjecture.
It is interesting though, that the majority of Christians found it a valuable way to speak about Jesus for more than a millenia. It may not be how you understand things, but such an observation leads me to ask: I wonder which ideas I have about God will one day been seen as disconnected and inaccurate?
Next Post: The Satisfaction or Substitution Theory
3 comments:
it is a worthwhile question. It's interesting to me how many ideas have a start in Scripture and get developed more later on (trinity, ransome, etc) - it's almost as if the Bible isn't a doctrinal textbook. Hmm....
I'm excited where you take this. I'm a big fan of Christus Victor. However, I tend to take these as they are: models. What is reality and what isn't is hard to weigh. How we talk about the 'hidden God' is a tough shell to crack... WHAT the cross did is difficult to say... but we know that it's done something HUGE.
CCC: love it. You would really enjoy N.T. Wright's metaphor about scripture being acts of a Shakespearean play - the idea is that we study them, immersing ourselves in the spirit of the text and then faithfully live out the final act. I'll email you a paper where he explores this much more eloquently than I :)
agora: I totally agree with your comments. I am very excited to get to the CV model to see what you think of my understanding of it.
Post a Comment