Aslan’s Ransom
It had been awhile since I had read about the different theories of the nature of the Atonement. Let me say from the outset that I believe int he expiating, propitiating, penal, subsitutionary atonement of Christ. It is expiating because it removes from me my sin and its guilt. It is propitiating because it fully satisfies God’s wrath against my sin. It is penal because I have violated God’s laws and holiness and therefore my penalty is his wrath in hell. It is substitutionary because Jesus suffered it in my place. I do not have to suffer it because Jesus did that for me.
But as I was reading up on the different atonement theories, one really struck me and depressed me. It was the ransom theory. It says that Satan was paid a ransom on the cross by God in the form of Christ’s blood because since man had sinned, we belong to Satan. Thus God paid Satan the blood of Jesus for our blood. Jesus was our ransom. That is not what the Bible describes as the nature of the atonement. When I tried to come up with an illustration of the theory to wrap my head around it, this is what I came up with.
Four young kids entered into a mythical land where all of the creatures were animals that could talk or they were beasts of ancient myths (ex: Cenotaurs, Minotaurs, fawns, and driads). They had one king, a large lion who’s father lived on the other side of the eastern sea. One of the four kids had made a deal to turn the other three over to the evil witch who had enslaved this land. When he realized the mistake he had made, he desperately wanted to make amends for it but he was her prisoner. The King of the land rescued the boy. But the witch knew that would never hold because this boy had broken a law. When one of the sacred laws were broken, the transgressor belonged to her, she must have his blood. So the King and the witch made a deal, he would take the boy’s place. He would die so that he might live. He went was killed by the witch in the boy’s place and the demand on the boy was fulfilled.
Sounds familiar doesn’t it? It is the beloved story The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. It broke my heart to read that from CS Lewis. The author of Mere Christianity made a major boo-boo in writing this story. Yes it was written to a little girl, but that isn’t any excuse. The truth needs to be taught to her, no matter what age. I remember telling my sister when I read her the book that the ransom was actually paid to God, not to Satan. I had to tell her that the one who killed Jesus was God, not the devil and not us. We are the indirect killers of Jesus, just as the boy was the indirect killer of Aslan. But it was God who actually put Jesus on that cross and killed him. I had to really correct that part of the story. Lewis really let me down and all who actually compare the death of Aslan with the death of Jesus.
But then again, we are all human and we don’t have it all togther. My caution in this post, be careful of who you read and really search what that person has to say with what the Holy Scriptures have to say. Sometimes it might just surprise you. I still say that Mere Christianity is the best apologetic in the last fifty years, if not longer. But we as those who understand the truth must make sure that all slips are met with the truth when we encounter them. That’s why we must be familiar with the truth so that we don’t make the mistakes. CS Lewis knew Christianity, but he was fallible. We are fallible too. I challenge all who read this to really study and make sure they know what the gospel really is so that they can enjoy The Chronicles of Narnia and not fall into the pit of a false notion of the atonement.
Related posts:
4 Comments so far
Leave a reply
I think that it is important to remember that the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe is not a theology treaties. It is a Christian children’s allegory. It is important to keep this in mind when reading and discussing the books. Once one does that, I think they are free to enjoy the clever paraells in the book. I think that it is important to note the difference between a picture of what happened, the sacrifice of Jesus/Aslan and the love and choice that it took to go through with the sacrifice. I think the power in the story is in the love of this magnificent being choosing to endure the pain of giving his life for the errors of the pitiful Edmund and Henry that really did not deserve it. When I look at it I can over look the ransom angle. I realize that Lewis is writing a children’s story, and there are powerful truth’s transmitted there. I wept at Aslan signing Narnia into form and in his choice to be substituted in place of Edmund.
In sum, while it is not 100% theologically accurate, it was not meant to be. It was meant to be a children’s book that laid the foundation for Christian principles.
I was merely commenting on the fact that I could not believe that CS Lewis would make that mistake. Yes it fits the story better and as I said, no one is perfect and we need to watch what we read and who we read. No one is without error and that he is trying to explain something to a little girl. The ransom theory catches much of the imagry that the Bible has to describe the cross. It is not supposed to be a theological treatise, that I know and understand. But that doesn’t mean he was correct in putting in pen what is not true. He still isn’t teaching that little girl the whole truth, only part of it.
Well, I don’t necessarily think that he was trying to communicate the whole of the gospel message. In light of that, I think there is some lee-way that we can give him. I mean, it it not just as erroneous to say that Jesus is a lion? I think the same amount of criticism can be leveled in the way the God-head is presented.
I think I can even question the ransom thing. If I remember correctly, it was the Queeen that thought the whole deal was a ransom. She embodied death more than Satan. That is why Edmund was hers, the wages of sin is death and that is what Edmund had earned.
But notice when Aslan is talking about the deeper magic - that is Lewis’s theory of the atonement. That is the perfect sacrifice. While to the witch it was a ransom, in reality, it was a sacrifice.
What do you think? Does my interp have any plausibility?
First I want to make plain that I love all seven of those books and I know that Lewis is making a parable of the Gospel in The Narnia stories. Like I said, I explained to Olivia the real nature of the death of Jesus and that it was God who made the demand, not Satan or death or anyone else. If a person is willing to take the time to make sure that they understand the true biblical scope of the gospel and not take Lewis at this word then they are okay.
Yes I think your interpretation has plausibility. But don’t forget that it was the law, “the deep magic” that gave the queen the right to demand the ransom. God makes the demand that we die and no one else. It was the Father Beyond the Sea that actually makes this demand upon Edmund. I’m not sure she embodies death so much as sin. I have been reading Romans 6
lately and sin seems to me not to be an act or a thought or a desire but a slave master who makes demands. But at any rate, I agree that Lewis is portraying Aslan’s death as that which purchases for Edmund the way out of death. The power of sin is overthrown. But sin makes no demands of death, God makes those. God received the payment on my behalf. The Father should have received the payment and the Father and Aslan should have gotten together to defeat sin out of love.
Yes I know this is a fictional telling of Narina and I love it to pieces, more so than (God-forbid) the Lord of the Rings. It too has some flaws but let us face it, Tolkien is no CS Lewis and he did not write Mere Christianity. That’s what caught me offguard so much.