From here:

One of the great problems one sees in the great debates about the meaning, significance, and effects of the death of Jesus is the problem of anachronism.  Already in the classic discussions which begin at least as early as Anselm, significant terms, ideas, concepts are being read into NT texts resulting in skewed interpretations of some of the more crucial and explicit NT texts which deal with atonement for sins.  This trend unfortunately did not end with the Patristic period but continued on into the Reformation period, and indeed into the modern period.  Juridical ideas and theories which didn’t not even exist in the first century A.D., or did not have the bearing they were later to have, have been imported into the discussion ad libertum with telling effect. For example, the theory that Jesus’ death provides a ransom to Satan so that the sinner may be freed from bondage to the Diabolical One is not only absent from the NT, it is a theory that goes against the grain of much of what is said about the matter in the NT.  Bondage in sin is not the same thing as demon possession nor does the NT suggest that God owes or pays Satan anything.

A very good piece. Read it all.