解説

 

A Ransom for Many - What can that mean?

作者: New Christian Bible Study Staff

A Ransom for Many - What can that mean?

Almost 2000 years ago, Jesus of Nazareth -- Jesus Christ -- was crucified. He died. Painfully. And then, by the second morning after that, He was risen from the dead. His physical body was gone - or, rather, in light of subsequent events, it seems to have been transformed into a spiritual one. (That's an interesting thing to think through, in itself, but it's not the focus of this article.)

Instead, here we want to focus on some of the things that are said in the Bible about why Jesus died. There's an almost-2000-year-old confusion about it. Let's dig into it...

In Mark 10:42-45 (and in Matthew 20:25-28), we find this well-known lesson, which occurs late in Jesus's ministry. James and John - still not really understanding the depth of what was going on, are lobbying Jesus for promises of sitting at His left and right hand when he is "king". The other disciples are displeased, of course. Jesus knows what's going on, so He gathers them all, and tries to explain the real nature of His mission, and what their mission should be, too.

Here's the text:

"But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

A ransom. The Greek word used here is λύτρον, or lutron, which means the price for redeeming or ransoming, from λύω, luo, for loosening, untying, or setting free.

Some theologians have taken this text, and combined it with the text from the crucifixion story, when Jesus says three things that show his distress, and his feeling of separation from his Divine essence -- "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?", and "Nevertheless, not my will, but Thine be done", and "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

It can certainly be interpreted as a sort of sacrifice, in which Jesus acts as a sort of scapegoat, substituting his death for the human race that had disappointed His Father. Some theologians have done that. Anselm of Canterbury, in around 1000 AD, was one of the leaders of a faction that made that argument. But we don't think that's the right track; in fact, we think it was a wrong track that's been pretty damaging.

In New Christian theology, it doesn't make sense that God was angry. He's love itself. Is He disappointed when we don't reciprocate His love? Sure. But angry? No. There's certainly the appearance of it, especially in the Old Testament at times, but the core nature of God is love.

What's more, it should be even clearer that the death of Jesus's physical body wouldn't make God the Father feel better. Remember, they are really ONE person, of one mind - not two.

Instead, the whole cycle of God's incarnation, ministry, physical death, and resurrection was undertaken so that new truths could reach humankind.

Here's an interesting passage, from Arcana Coelestia 1419,

"The Lord, being love itself, or the essence and life of the love of all in the heavens, wills to give to the human race all things that are His; which is signified by His saying that the Son of man came to give His life a ransom for many."

Further, in Apocalypse Explained 328:15, we find this explanation:

“The phrase ‘to ransom’ means to free people from falsities and reform them by means of truths. This is signified by the words, ‘Ransom [redeem] me, O Jehovah, God of truth’” (Psalm 31:5)

One reason Jesus died was to overcome the power of hell. Jesus fought against evil spirits throughout His life. The clearest description of this is just after his baptism, when he spends 40 days in the wilderness. His suffering on the cross was the final struggle against evil, and His resurrection was his final victory over it.

For every person, overcoming evil involves temptation or a struggle against evil. As we struggle against evil individually, Christ struggled against evil on a cosmic scale. His death was the conclusion of that struggle, but it wasn't a loss; it was a win. The Bible says that God took on flesh and blood so that

“... through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.” (Hebrews 2:14,15)

Another reason that Bible gives for Jesus’ death was that He might unite His human nature with His Divine nature, so that He could “make in Himself, of two, one new man,” (Ephesians 2:14-16, cf. John 17:11, 21; 10:30).

There are other reasons mentioned, too:

He could "go to the Father" (John 13:3; 14:2, 28; 16:10).

He could be "glorified" (John 17:1,5) or "enter into His glory" (Luke 24:26).

He could be "perfected" (Luke 13:32), or "sanctified" (John 17:19).

In Swedenborg's True Christianity 86, it says,

"Jehovah God came into the world as divine truth for the purpose of redeeming people. Redemption was a matter of gaining control of the hells, restructuring the heavens, and then establishing a church."

At the crucifixion, the forces of evil thought they had won. The religious and civic powers of the day led the way in condemning him. He was mocked. The crowd turned against him.

The death of Jesus' physical body was a "ransom" in this way: by undergoing that torture and death, He could then show that his spiritual power transcended natural death. He freed us, loosened us, from domination by the hells, and established a new church -- a new way that we can follow.

聖書

 

Luke 24:26

勉強

       

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

スウェーデンボルグの著作から

 

Apocalypse Explained#1049

この節の研究

  
/ 1232に移動  
  

1049. Verse 6. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, signifies a religious persuasion that is insane from falsities of evil, from which violence is done to Divine truths. This is evident from the signification of "the woman," as being the religious persuasion that is meant in a general sense by "Babylon" (as above, n. 1042); also from the signification of "to be drunken," as meaning to be insane in spiritual things from falsities of evil (See above, n. 376, 1035); also from the signification of "the blood of the saints," as being Divine truths, here violence done to them, because it is meant that the blood was shed. (That "blood" signifies the Divine truth may be seen in n. 30, 328, 329, 476, 748; and that "shedding blood" signifies violence done to Divine truth, n. 329. It is said "the blood of the saints," because the Divine truths of the Word are what are called holy because by "saints" in the spiritual sense saints are not meant, but things holy; for in the spiritual sense of the Word there is no idea of person, place or time; but it is otherwise with its natural sense.

[2] How these two senses differ from each other can be clearly seen in many passages of the Word, as here where it is said that he "saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and the blood of the witnesses or martyrs of Jesus," and in the natural sense these words mean that Babylon shed the blood of the saints, and the blood of those who bore witness to the Lord; while in the spiritual sense these words mean that Babylon did violence to Divine truths, and also to testification concerning the Lord. That this sense is contained in these words can also be seen or concluded from this, that the modern Babylon has not slain the saints nor the witnesses of the Lord, for it worships saints even to idolatry, and the Lord with supreme though external sanctity, but the Pope with internal sanctity; which makes clear that this is not what is to be understood, but that something more interior lies hidden in these words, which is, that they have done violence to Divine truths, and also to the Lord's Divine authority; for they have done violence to Divine truths by falsifying, adulterating, and profaning the Word; and it is known that they have done violence to the Lord's Divine authority by transferring it to themselves.

(Continuation respecting Profanation)

[3] It has been said that the most grievous kind of profanation is when the truths of the Word are acknowledged in faith and confirmed in the life, and man afterwards recedes from faith and lives in evil, or if he does not recede from faith he nevertheless lives in evil. But one who is in faith and in the life according to it from childhood to youth, and afterwards in adult age recedes from faith and from the life of faith, does not profane, for the reason that the faith of childhood is the faith of the memory, and is the master's faith in the child; while the faith of adult age is the faith of the understanding, and thus man's own faith. This faith man can profane if he recedes from it and lives contrary to it, but not the former. For nothing enters the life of man and affects it except what comes into the understanding and from that into the will; and man does not think from his own understanding and act from his own will until he arrives at adult age. Before that he has thought merely from knowledge and has acted merely from obedience; and this does not make a part of his life, and therefore cannot be profaned.

[4] In a word, whatever a man thinks, speaks, and does from the understanding with the will favoring it, this belongs to his life or comes to be of his life; and if this is holy it is profaned by his receding. But the profanations of this kind are more grievous or are lighter according to the quality of the truth and the consequent faith, and according to the quality of the good and the consequent life, and according to the quality of the withdrawal from these; and therefore there are many specific differences in this profanation.

  
/ 1232に移動  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Foundation for their permission to use this translation.