The Redemption Paradox

In church history, the earliest theory of the Atonement was the Ransom Theory. Not much of a theory, really. I mean, it wasn't theoretical, because Jesus said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). “Ransom” wasn’t the early church’s idea; it was His. Paul writes that Christ “redeemed us” from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), and Peter assures his readers that “you were not redeemed with perishable things” (1 Pet. 1:18). Same thing: a price is paid to free us.

So this “Ransom Theory” was Jesus’s idea, and the early church decided to let Him have it—even though many today don’t like the idea of “paying for sins” in any way. The question they had, however, was not whether He paid for our atonement, but who He paid. The disagreement was over whether it was Satan or someone else. Origen, Ambrose, and even Augustine (in his earlier writings) supported the view that, when we sinned, Satan took ownership of humanity, and Christ paid off Satan to free us.

Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and—interestingly—later Augustine argued that the payment was made to God, because sin was against God, and Satan, the usurper, had no legitimate right to ownership.

Then Anselm brought out the Satisfaction Theory, claiming that God’s righteousness needed to be satisfied. Sin dishonors God (Rom. 3:23), and His honor needed to be restored. The Reformation gave us the Penal Substitution Theory, where Christ bears the penalty for our sin, and the payment He made (remember, no less than Jesus Himself claimed He came to make a payment) was made to God.

Clearly Christ was victorious, so the Christus Victor view has its merits (Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14; Col. 1:13; 1 John 3:8). And the idea that Christ paid for our sin with His suffering is irrefutable (Isa. 53:5–6; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 3:25). And that last reference makes it abundantly clear to Whom the price was paid: “God put Him forward as a propitiation by His blood” (Rom. 3:25). The price was paid to God. It satisfied the God who had righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18–19). The Holy God was opposed to sin and needed to be propitiated; Christ did that.

Now… pause there and think about that. We sinned, so God had a problem: how to show mercy to sinners who violated His glory. He had to be just, but He wanted to show mercy. So He sent His Son to die for us (Rom. 5:8). Get that? The angry God sent His Son to pay the price for the sinners. God, rightly wrathful, sent His Son to be the payment—to appease His wrath. Go ahead—wrap your head around that one.