We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
In the first instalment of a seven volume series, The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, C. S. Lewis offers us an extraordinary tale involving four children who enter a magical land, Narnia, a myriad of talking animals, a Christ-like lion named Asian and a satanic creature known simply as the Witch (although she claims the title of Queen of Narnia and Empress of the Lone Islands). At the heart of the story is a drama of salvation, or at least saving deliverance. One of the children, Edmund, is held captive by the Witch and will be released only on the condition of Asian's taking Edmund's place. Asian is the ransom for Edmund. In rough outline, Asian's ransoming Edmund and his subsequent resurrection fits the classic ransom theory of the atonement, a theory which can hardly boast of enormous contemporary appeal. I do not think its unpopularity is altogether deserved. Versions of the theory may be found in many patristic writers including Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, St Ambrose, St Jerome, and Origen. I wish here to defend a modified ransom theory against six of the classic objections which have contributed to its neglect. As C. S. Lewis, the father of Narnia, has presented a rich story of a ransom drama which is more familiar (and sometimes more fun to read) than the Nicene and Prenicene fathers, I will use The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe to set forth a bold, unsophisticated ransom theory.
1 Lewis, C. S., The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (New York: Macmillan, 1961), p. 114Google Scholar.
2 Ibid., p. 114.
3 Ibid., pp. 125, 126.
4 Ibid., pp. 132, 133.
5 Ibid., p. 139.
6 Some of the biblical passages which have figured prominently in defence of a ransom theory include Matt. 20.28, Mark 10.45, I Tim. 2.6, Rev. 5.9, Hebrews 2.14, I Cor. 15.24–28 and Col. 1.13. Consult any standard concordance for a wealth of references to Satan or the demonic in the New Testament.
7 Rashdall, Hastings, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology (London: MacMillan & Co., 1919), p. 364Google Scholar.
8 Cf. Nozick's, Robert characterization of retributive justice in Philosophical Explanations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981)Google Scholar.
9 Cf. Kierkegaard, , Philosophical Fragments, translated by Hong, Howard (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974)Google Scholar, chapter one. Kierkegaard reflects on our free ability to lose our freedom. Note his citation of Aristotle (p. 21): ‘The vicious and the virtuous have not indeed power over their moral actions; but at first they had the power to become either the one or the other, just as one who throws a stone has power over it until he has thrown it, but not afterwards.’ (A somewhat inaccurate translation of Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. III, Ch. V). I owe this reference to S. Evans.
10 Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism, cited by Aulén, Gustaf, Chrisms Victor, translated by Herbert, A. G. (London: SPCK, 1940)Google Scholar.
