Bible Dictionaries
Ransom (2)

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Search for…

Enter query below:

or

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Prev Entry
Ransom

Next Entry
Rapture Ecstasy

Resource Toolbox

Print Article

RANSOM.—The word ‘ransom’ occurs twice in the NT, in both cases with reference to Christ’s giving of Himself for the redemption of man: (1) in Matthew 20:28 = Mark 10:45, where it represents the Gr. λύτρον: ‘the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many’; and (2) in 1 Timothy 2:6, where it stands for ἀντίλυτρον: ‘For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5), who gave himself a ransom for all.’ The idea, however, is implicit in the verb (λυτροῦμαι) and nouns (λυτρωτής, λύτρωσις, ἀπολύτρωσις) used to express the thought and fact of redemption (see Redemption). It is probable from its structure that the second of the above passages (1 Timothy 2:6) looks back upon Christ’s saying in the first (Matthew 20:28); it has been thought also that the ἐλυτρώθητε in 1 Peter 1:18 is an echo of the same saying (Denney, Death of Christ, p. 92). The word λύτρον itself is most probably the equivalent of the Heb. word כֹּפֵר (Wendt and others question this, but most admit the connexion), and the attempt to give a closer definition of its meaning in relation to Christ’s redemption goes back on the usage of this OT word (cf. the elaborate discussion in Ritschl’s Recht. u. Vers. ii. pp. 70–80).

כֹּפֶר, then, the word generally translated ‘ransom’ in the OT (Exodus 21:30; Exodus 30:12, Numbers 35:31-32 Authorized Version ‘satisfaction’; 1 Samuel 12:3 Authorized Version ‘bribe,’ Job 33:23-24; Job 36:18, Psalms 49:7, Proverbs 6:35; Proverbs 13:8; Proverbs 21:18, Isaiah 43:3, Amos 5:12), is derived, like the verb בִּפֶּר ‘to propitiate,’ ‘to atone,’ from a root meaning ‘to cover.’ It may thus be used, as in 1 Samuel 12:3 above, of a bribe given to blind the eyes from seeing what, in justice, they ought to see (cf. Exodus 23:8, Job 9:24). This connects itself with the old idea of a gift as ‘covering the face’ (cf. Genesis 32:20) of an offended person, i.e. propitiating, appeasing him, or inclining him to favour. As, however, in the case of an offence, there is little difference between covering the eyes of the offended party from beholding the offence, and covering the offence from his sight, it can easily be seen how בִּפֶּר came to take this second sense of covering the sinful person or his iniquity. This leads to the idea, which is the common one in the OT, of כֹּפֶּר as a ‘ransom,’ in the sense of something given in exchange for another as the price of that other’s redemption, or for one’s own redemption, or, what is at bottom the same idea, as satisfaction for a life. Thus in Isaiah 43:3-4 Jehovah is metaphorically said to have given Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba as a ransom for (‘instead of’) Israel. Hofmann, in his Schriftbeweis (ii. p. 234, 2nd ed.), has a different interpretation. He takes the notion of ‘covering’ in this word to apply to ‘covering in value’ (one thing covering the worth of another), and so imports into כֹּפֶר the idea of strict equivalence. It is true that ‘ransom’ in the OT usually includes the idea of rendering what may be termed an equivalent; but it is more than doubtful whether this can be read into the etymological signification. The term has, on the other hand, in nearly every case the direct meaning of a redemption-price for another, or for one’s own life. (1) In illustration of the latter sense, we have it declared in Numbers 35:31-32 that in no circumstances is a ‘ransom’ to be taken for the life of a murderer. Again, in Exodus 21:30 it is provided that if, through its owner’s carelessness, an ox gore a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and the owner shall pay ‘for the ransom of his life’ what is laid on him (in the case of a slave, 30 shekels, v. 32). So at the taking of a census (Exodus 30:12), each Israelite above twenty years had to pay half a shekel—‘atonement-money’ (Exodus 30:15 f.)—as ‘a ransom for his soul (or life).’ (2) In illustration of the former sense—redemption-price for another (cf. Isaiah 43:3 above)—two instances stand out conspicuously. One is Psalms 49:7 ‘None of them [the rich in this life] can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him ‘(cf. Psalms 49:8 f.); the other is Job 33:24 ‘Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom.’ כֹּפֶר, in both of these passages, has clearly the sense of something given in exchange for a life, which redeems it from death.

In the above cases in the Law, the ransom is a sum of money; in the case of the firstborn, though the word כֹּפֶר is not used, it is a sacrifice—a life for a life (cf. Numbers 18:15-16). Here the fact is to be noticed—of interest in the NT connexion—that in all this range of meanings the word ‘ransom’ is never in the OT directly connected with the propitiatory sacrifices. It is connected with propitiatory payments (cf. Exodus 30:12 above), and in 2 Samuel 21:3-7 the idea, if not the word, is connected with the propitiatory delivering up of Saul’s seven sons to the Gibeonites (after refusal of a money-satisfaction, 2 Samuel 21:4). But the victim, even in sin- and trespass-offerings, is never spoken of as ‘ransoming’ the offerer. Its blood propitiates, atones for his sin, but the term ‘ransom’ is not employed. Yet it must be held that the connexion between the two ideas of sacrifice offered for the removal of sin (to make propitiation, כִּפֶּר) and of ‘ransom’ (כֹּפֶר) is very close; and that, whether the word is used or not, the expiatory sacrifice was also, in its own way, a כֹּפֶר for the life of the offerer (the LXX Septuagint in Psalms 49:8 as in 1 Samuel 12:3 renders the word by ἐξιλασμα). Ritschl’s generalization of the meaning of the term (applied also to the sacrifice) into ‘a means of protection’ (Schutzmittel), ignores the essential point of redemption (not simply protection) by the payment of a price, or offering of an expiation.

The way is now clearer for the understanding of the NT passages. There can be little difficulty, when his words are taken in the general connexion of his thought, in apprehending what St. Paul meant when he spoke in 1 Timothy 2:6 of Christ’s having given Himself as an ἀντίλυτρον for all. ‘Ransom’ has here its true and proper sense of ‘a price paid in exchange,’ and the ideas of ‘ransom’ and expiatory sacrifice flow together in the unity of the thought of redemption through Christ’s reconciling death (see Redemption). In St. Paul’s view, Christ has given Himself up as a sin-offering for the world upon the Cross (Romans 8:3, 2 Corinthians 5:14; 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:13 etc.). He has redeemed the world by Himself dying for it (Romans 5:6; Romans 5:9-10). His death, reconciling us to God (Romans 3:24-25, Ephesians 2:16, Colossians 1:20 etc.), brings life and salvation to mankind. St. Paul’s mind is not troubled by the monetary analogy: it is not of a money price he is thinking, but of a great ethical reparation rendered to God’s broken law of righteousness. It is to God the ‘ransom’ is paid, not to another. The Son of God, in humanity, renders it for the world.

If, therefore, St. Paul knew of the saying of Jesus recorded in Matthew and Mark, there can be little doubt how he would have interpreted it. Alike in his thought and that of St. Peter (cf. 1 Peter 1:18-19), the idea of a λύτρον is involved in the conception of ἀπολύτρωσις. Redemption has the two aspects, which can never be separated—redemption by ‘ransom,’ i.e. from sin’s guilt and condemnation; and redemption by power, from sin’s bondage and other evil effects. The Apostolic gospel comprehended both. But what of Christ’s own thought? The genuineness of the saying in Matthew 20:28 = Mark 10:45 has been assailed (by Baur, etc.), but surely without the slightest grounds (cf. Ritschl, ii. p. 42 ff.; Denney, p. 36 f.). Its meaning also must be interpreted by the fact that Christ’s own mind at the time of uttering it was full of the thought of His death. It is His ‘life’ He gives, and He startles by saying that He yields it up as a λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν. He declares, further, that it was for this very end He came. His death was neither unforeseen, nor simply submitted to. He came to redeem the world by offering Himself as a ‘ransom’ for it. No doubt it is possible to empty the saying of most of its significance by generalizing it to mean that in some undefined way Christ’s death would be of great saving benefit to mankind, and therefore might be spoken of metaphorically as a ransom for the good of many (cf. Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. p. 509 ff.). This interpretation fails, if account be taken of the redeeming efficacy which Jesus in other places (as in the words at the Last Supper) undeniably attributes to His death (see Redemption). Ritschl, though he unduly weakens the force of the word λύτρον, does not fall into any such superficializing. He sees a solemn and weighty import in the words of Jesus, and interprets them to mean that Jesus, by His voluntary and guiltless death, directed to this end, redeems the members of His community from the doom of final annihilation impending over them in the judgment of God, gives death a new character to them, and delivers them from its fear (ii. p. 87). The interpretation cannot be accepted; neither is it explained how the death of Jesus should effect such a result. Yet Jesus assuredly did view the world as lying under condemnation of God, sunk in estrangement and evil, and needing both forgiveness and renewal to righteousness, and redemption from this state He connected with His own Person, and in a peculiar way with His death, which He here speaks of as a λύτρον, or redemption-price, to that end. Further investigation must be left to other articles (see Atonement, Reconciliation, Redemption).

The idea of Christ’s death as ‘a ransom for all’ has ever been a favourite one in the preaching, theology, and hymnology of the Church. In certain circles it early became connected with the fanciful notion that the ransom was paid, not to God, but to the Evil One, who was supposed to have acquired rights over man through sin, which God, in righteousness, could not ignore. Christ’s soul, therefore, it was taught, was given up to Satan as the price of the surrender of these assumed rights over mankind. But Satan was deceived in the bargain, for, having obtained possession of the sinless soul of Jesus, he could not hold it. That sinless soul was a torture to him. This theory, connected in the early Church with Origen and Gregory of Nyssa (though Origen, at least, frequently expresses himself in a quite contrary sense), prevailed extensively in the Middle Ages, but never really stood alone, or gained ascendency over the abler minds. Distinguished Fathers repudiated it, and Anselm reasons against it in his Cur Deus Homo.

Literature.—Ritschl, Recht. und Vers. ii. pp. 51 ff., 192 ff.; Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. p. 511 ff.; artt. ‘Propitiation,’ ‘Ransom,’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible ; Denney, Death of Christ, p. 42 ff.; Stevens, Theol. of the NT, p. 126 ff.

James Orr.