Christ’s passion for the glory of the Father and the salvation of his beloved is what Easter is about. In Mark 10:45, Jesus explains why he was born:
“For even the Son of Man came not to serve, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
The gospel is proclaimed in this verse . . . how? How is this good news? In this post, I aim to answer that question. The following are expanded notes with commentaries from a sermon I heard Steve Lawson preach at the Cross of Christ regional Ligonier Conference in Ft. Worth last November, titled ‘Christ, Our Ransom.’ Though I remember Lawson’s brilliant exposition of the text fairly well, my notes were brief, so most of the following is my commentary on Lawson’s exposition.
What is a ransom (Gk. lupron)? In pop culture today, a ransom nearly exclusively refers to a payment rendered to a kidnapper in order to secure the redemption of the person kidnapped. However, the Bible’s reference to a ransom typically refers either to payment under the Law made for sin or a price paid to redeem a slave (e.g. Ex. 21:30, 30:12; Lev. 19:20). In fact, the connection of a ransom paid for redemption with slavery is an important parallel to make for every Christian who has been bought and redeemed from their slavery to sin into adoption as slaves of Christ, who is an infinitely glorious and benevolent Master.
Why was a ransom necessary? After Peter and John healed a lame begger and preached the gospel at Solomon’s Portico, they were arrested for preaching the resurrection. The next day, Peter preached to the Council of Sadducees and elders, “There is salvation in no one else, for there is not other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The very fact that salvation in Christ is needed should make the idea of redemption in order to be saved necessary. So why? Peter proclaims Christ alone has given his life as a ransom for those chosen by God’s sovereign grace in Christ before the foundation of the world, and the ransom required was necessary because we were 1) slaves to our sin (Rom. 6:20), and 2) to Satan (John 8:44, 2 Tim. 2:26) and 3) we were held captive to the world that is hostile toward God, while in bondage to the curse of the law. In order to fully comprehend Mk. 10:45, it is absolutely necessary to place the third reason at the top of the list. Ultimately, a ransom was necessary for our salvation because we are cursed for not keeping the Law. This curse is rendered by God who declares “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). Therefore, Gal. 3:10b says, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”
Who paid the ransom? Paul unlocks the answer to this question in one beautiful sentence about the great exchange of Christ’s righteousness for our sin. “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). Who paid the ransom? Jesus did. The Judge of heaven and earth paid the price for our ransom. Our precious resurrected Savior paid the punitive substitutionary atonement for all who are legally declared righteous by faith before the Father. I have said this in several posts now: that is why imputation is so important to justification. Christ lived the perfect live that we should have lived and are condemned for not doing, and he died the sinless sacrifice on our behalf, our ransom, imputing his righteousness to us and taking our sins from us and taking them on himself on the cross. Therefore, Christ has paid the ransom price by becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3:13).
How was the ransom paid? “. . . to give his life” (Mk. 10:45). Jesus Christ paid the ransom price necessary for our redemption by offering his life on our behalf. The high price to pay for our redemption was not easy, either. Jesus had to die. Rom. 3:24-26 teaches, “We are justified by his grace as a gift, through redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God put forward as a propitiation . . .” Propitiation is a heavily loaded word in the New Testament, but it is a beautiful word in light of the gospel. It, first, carries the meaning of the kind of atonement necessary to pay our ransom. In fact, we can be sure by this verse that the cross satisfied the necessary atonement for our sin by exhausting the cup of God’s wrath forever by his blood. If that were not enough, the Greek word for propitiation also carries with it the idea of expiation. In the Old Testament, the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins expiated). Why does the gospel hinge on this? When the hope of the gospel is proclaimed, it also celebrates the righteousness of God in all his glory. Therefore, Paul adds to Rom. 3:25a, “This was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be the just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (vv. 25b-26).
Was the ransom voluntarily paid? I feel this point should be added because a few misguided folks have vocally denied the beauty of the vicarious suffering of Jesus Christ as our penal substitution and ransom for our redemption, occasionally drifting to calling Christ’s death on the cross cosmic child abuse. They claim a neutered Christus Victor theory of atonement in an effort to preserve God’s righteousness and the unity of the Trinity. But stooping to these counter-gospel conclusions is an affront to the gospel. Why? Jesus willingly laid down his life for the sheep. Jesus knew the will of the Father spoken in the Scriptures by Isaiah, “Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief” (53:10, cf. Matt. 27:46), and his reply was, “I am the good shepherd . . . and I down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15). Therefore, the ransom was paid by our Savior’s blood, not spilled, but poured out voluntarily. Jesus was not the victim of the cross. He was the victor, and he is alive today!
To whom was the ransom paid? Too many believers have assumed the ransom was paid to Satan since we were slaves to sin and death as children of wrath and sons of disobedience (see Eph. 2:2, 3). But the ransom was not paid to Satan. It was not offered to the devil. He did not hold the price of redemption over the heads of sinners. No, the ransom was paid to the Father who was pleased to save many by offering his Son on the cross for our redemption.
For whom was the ransom paid? “. . . for many” (Mk. 10:45). The blood of Christ was shed on the cross for many. We can be sure Jesus was not crucified for his sin, but according to the foreknowledge of the Father, he was appointed to die for our sin. He took our place. This is the vicarious nature of the atonement for the payment of our sins, and Jesus says it is ‘for many,’ not all. There is a specific focus of the specific atonement of those redeemed by God’s grace for us in Christ, and there is also a glorious triumph in ‘for many,’ not all. We can be sure not a drop of Christ’s blood was poured out in vain–not a cent of the ransom was overpaid. Jesus is receiving his very bride, and by the proclamation of the gospel, God according to his sovereign grace is calling all of his sheep to the sheepfold.
Are you in Christ today? Are you among those for whom the ransom was paid? If you are hearing the gospel proclaimed to you as you are reading this loud and clear like a ringing bell, answer the call. Believe and be saved. Be reconciled to God through faith in all the promises God is for us in Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the glory of Easter.
PS :: Read Drew’s post below about the Said at Southern blog madness. We made it to the second round, which is actually a surprise for us. There are a lot of excellent blogs in the S@S network, including several who have been blogging faithfully longer. But, if you feel like it, vote for us. If not, that is fine. We are just glad you are reading.
PS2 :: Also read Drew’s post Preaching the Wrath of God on Easter, where he asks, “What did you hear preached on Sunday morning?” “If we sacrifice the whole truth for a half truth, we might win more hearers, but in doing so we have ceased to preach the gospel and we have begun to deceive our hearers.”
Drew and Tyler, I noticed while surfing tags and categories on WordPress that the big tags and catagories for our blog are ‘religion’ and ‘Christianity.’
This is strictly for search engine and feed purposes . . . when you write a post, always include the ‘religion’ and ‘Christianity’ categories AND tags before posting. This will help place our feed in categories people actually search. Anyway, I think this will help too. We already come up fairly quickly on Google, so that is nice.
I really hope this isn’t going to be the only comment on the ransom paid for our redemption . . . :)
Hello from a new reader and new fan of your blog! I came across the blog while Googling for Reformed evangelical blogs for reading and edification. (As I have found, the number of such blogs is at a premium.) Thank you for the article on the ransom of Christ alone for our sins. A very necessary countercultural statement to a postmodern culture that demands freedom in all its thoughts and ways.
I wanted to include your blog as a friend on my blog. (I don’t know if that involves subscribing to feeds; I’m very raw and untrained about blogs!) But I wanted to touch base with you first; I think your blog insights will be a helpful means of edification for my own blog readers. And your inclusion of this blog on mine would mean fellowship in Christ between bloggers as a corporate witness of the Gospel. No pressure on this, though; and no big deal if the word is “nay” on the matter. Thanks again for writing the article! It was a very good reading and learning experience.
Sincerely yours,
Rick
Rick, it is refreshing to see so many bloggers diligently typing out the beauty of biblical Reformed theology on the wider blogosphere.
Thanks for posting Thomas Watson’s thoughts on Communion. I believe the church today is largely ignorant of the purpose of observing the Lord’s Supper, so your post is timely.
I haven’t looked all around your blog yet. I’ll try to do that after work today. I am curious, though . . . are you Presbyterian?
Lastly, thanks for stopping by our blog, Elect Exiles. It is our hope and intent to magnify the supremacy and beauty of Christ and the glory of God in the blogosphere and bring a gospel-centered focus to the Reformed blogosphere. Tyler, Drew, and I (the three contributers at EE) are Reformed Southern Baptists and students at two SBC seminaries. We are glad to have you as a reader at our blog. You are welcome to subscribe to our RSS feeds. Or, you can just stop by as you wish. Subscriptions, especially with Technorati help make our blog more visible in searches, but we do not want to pressure any of our readers to do anything they do not want to do. So, feel free to read/subscribe to our blog however you wish.
Also, you are welcome to add us to your blogroll, link any of our articles to your blog, etc. In fact, you don’t even need to ask our permission! If you become a fairly regular reader and commenter at our blog, we will also add you to our blogroll and encourage our readers to take a look at your blog.
Feel free to check around at EE. We have nearly 70 posts to read now, and have big plans to increase that dramatically over the next few months. If you wish to know any more about us, click on the ‘about’ or ‘authors’ tab.
Thanks for the feedback, brothers. Yes, I would be glad to put your blog on my blogroll/friends’ blogs list. I do believe that Christians all have gifts to contribute to the body life of the confessing visible church, according to the grace given us by God. I think the allusion to Romans specifically has the context of spiritual gifts, gifts governed by the Holy Spirit for the leadership and direction of the church. But I also use the alluded Romans passage to think about natural gifts governed and blessed by the Spirit – Christians’ talents for the arts and sciences, as one example, but also experiences Christians have had in their walk with the Spirit for examining the ways of life in the visible church and life in the world. (As one example, I read R.C. Sproul’s book “Essential Truths” during college, and I learned about Sproul’s developed interest in philosophy while reading Augustine in college; that interest led Sproul to the apologetic approach of comparing the Gospel to secular worldviews. That insight from Sproul drove me to want to be able to make my own comparisons of the ways of the Gospel and lost culture in later years.)
I know that as seminary students learning the deep things of God and the fall of man and God’s love for the lost, you have learned things that are valuable to talk about on the blogosphere. You mentioned to me about desiring a Gospel-centered approach to be upheld among bloggers; I have come to desire that myself. So, I want to read your blog to appreciate the unique natural gifts you have to offer to the spiritual health and body life of the confessing visible church, blessed under the Holy Spirit.
Accordingly, if I make comments (this one notwithstanding), I would offer compliments about your Gospel lessons learned or ask for your insights on those lessons – what things you found to be life-changing during the learning process, in which you learn to see the world with God with eyes wide open. Being admittedly a bookworm, I would also add comments of asking what books you have found to be a help on such and such a subject, such as topics you write about on this blog.
Thank you again for writing back; it was a pleasure finding this blog. May the Heavenly Father bless the work of your hands for your pursuit of the Gospel for others.
Rick, we excitedly welcome you at EE. Thanks for you commendations and uplifting exhortations to us as young seminarians.
Yes, comment away on our posts. We keep up with comments on both new and old posts, so you can be sure we will answer any questions you have or discuss any additional resources you would like to know about. We would also welcome your feedback.
When I get home this evening, I plan to stop by your blog again and thumb through your posts. If you did not notice earlier, we actually posted three new posts yesterday. So, if you get a chance, be sure to check them out.
For the Gospel,
Kevin
Wow, Kevin, this is a very thorough post! As you clearly set forth the wrath of God being paid by Christ on the cross, I was reminded of how the Lord so often seems to have given you and I one heart and mind on issues related to the gospel!
I did want to mention one thing that you said, “the very fact that salvation in Christ is needed should make the idea of redemption necessary.”
I know your heart and you clarify later in the post when you talk about how Christ voluntarily paid our ransom, but reading that line made me want to make clear that the cross was not something God was bound to come up with for our redemption. He could have, and would have been just to, leave us in our fallen sinful condition and pour out the fullness of his wrath on us!
Ok now for my favorite part of your post:
Are you in Christ today? Are you among those whom the ransom was paid? If you are hearing the gospel proclaimed to you as you are reading this loud and clear like a ringing bell, answer the call. Believe and be saved. Be reconciled to God through faith in all the promises God is for us in Jesus Christ.
Amen and amen!
And a third and final observation. I was thinking today about the oft repeated mantra that penal substitutionary atonement amounts to divine child abuse and the more I think about it the more convinced I am that if Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was not a substitutionary death on our behalf then it must be divine child abuse! What I mean is that if the cross is merely an example of God’s love for us, then it is divine child abuse. If the cross is merely the conquering of Satan, then it amounts to divine child abuse. If the cross is merely the ultimate example of how we should live in relation to our neighbor then God slew his own dear Son just to show us how to love our neighbor then that would be divine child abuse!
But if (which I wholeheartedly believe to be true) Christ died for the glory of God by taking on himself the wrath of God for sin, for all who believe in Christ, and in so doing displays his infinite glory in acting in mercy upon the objects of his wrath, then the cross is the single greatest display of God’s grace by which he secures our redemption and our only source of boasting!
Rick,
Thanks for dropping by our site! I hope what you find here proves beneficial and edifying to you. You are always welcome here and I will definitely check out your blog as well!
Hey Drew, thanks for offering the clarification when I make the link between our need for salvation and redemption. When I get off work, I will do a little editing. I think it can be clarified two ways:
1) The very fact that salvation in Christ is needed should make the idea of redemption in order to be saved necessary.
Or
2) The very fact that salvation in Christ is needed should make the idea of redemption in order to be saved necessary. Make no mistake, God’s hand was not forced to offer his Son as our ransom. He could have justly left us to perish in our stubborn sinfulness.
How about that?
If you remember my lengthy comment and short exposition of Rom. 3:23-26 in Lisa’s comment meta concerning the cross, I also made it clear that I believe the biblical doctrine of atonement (especially as penal substitution) is what makes the cross glorious (comment #1). That is, if you take it away in an effort to preserve God’s righteousness, you unwittingly declare that God hates his Son.
Thanks, Drew. I too think we revel in the gospel in similar ways, and I remember it vividly when we were sharing the gospel with Irene in Taiwan. That is the gospel she heard and had faith in according to God’s merciful effectual call, and now she is our sister in the Lord. It is my earnest prayer that this blog will similarly proclaim the beauty of Christ in the gospel across the blogosphere.
I think either 1 or 2 works. I think I like 2 best, though 1 is more concise. I knew what you meant though.
Good word on the atonement!
This might be my favorite post that you have written! It was one of those posts that made me want to boast more in the cross.
Hey man, thanks again. I am going with #1 because the wording better fits the direction of the post without running off topic, a little.
For those reading the comment thread, when you read, “The very fact that salvation in Christ is needed should make the idea of redemption in order to be saved necessary” in the post, be sure to interpret its meaning this way: “The very fact that salvation in Christ is needed should make the idea of redemption in order to be saved necessary. Make no mistake, God’s hand was not forced to offer his Son as our ransom. He could have justly left us to perish in our stubborn sinfulness.”
Drew’s careful eye when reading this post goes to show why editors are very helpful to authors AND bloggers! I knew exactly what I meant when I wrote the biblical answer to the question, “Why was a ransom necessary?” But, I didn’t carefully express it as I should have in order to help those reading interpret what the Bible is saying about the necessity of a ransom without any confusion. Thanks again, buddy.
three cheers for penal substitution!
Kevin and co.,
Thank you very much for the reply from earlier to my blog article on imputed righteousness and the issue of legal fiction (and my apologies for my delay in my own reply). I agree with your thoughts on Reformed theology and the Baptist tradition; it is good to see that brothers in Christ are reaching out to Calvin’s great life passage of the First Epistle of Corinthians, that when the church is prophesying and an unbeliever comes into the church and hears, then he proclaims that God really is among the Christians. My hope with the Lord is to support you all in your pursuit of the Bible’s teachings for your hearts and the Reformed views of grace for your confidence.
And as a word on the ransom of Christ, and penal substitution, I also say this was a great article to read. How does Jesus’ service bring confidence to us as the Gospel? His service was a suffering service to pluck us as brands out of the fire. I would recall J. Gresham Machen and J.I. Packer, as well as Packer’s mentor, the great Puritan Christian John Owen, in my own love of the ransom and penal substitution of Christ in my walk with the Lord, especially as a concerned contrast to the claims of “cosmic child abuse” in the liberal theology communities. I am so very thankful for the active obedience of Christ; no hope with it. Likewise, I am so very thankful for the penal substitution of Christ; no hope without it. If Jesus did not suffer eternal wrath and the rage of God on the cross, then I must; if Jesus did not suffer these things in this life, then I must for eternity.
In my grasp of the orthodoxy of the Gospel with the Lord, I know that I have the power to say “Yes” to edification in Christ alone with the Lord, my God and my Father. And in abiding with the Lord, I have the power to say “No” side by side with Him to all sin and miseries of this life, for enjoying eternal one to one communion with Him alone in the kingdom to come.
thanks for putting your sermon in blog form, kschaub!
[...] Christ’s Righteousness, Not Our Own Pt. 2 :: A popular post on the gospel, how we are saved and how Christ’s death atones for those who believe. [...]
kschaub,
Thanks for posting this. Your very thorough treatment of the atonement in this post and part 1 will really help me when I talk to some of my friends about why we needed Christ to die in order for us to be forgiven. Thanks again.
DJ
This is a wonderful article. Thanks!