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.

9055. 'Burning for burning' means if anything of love and affection present in the inward part of the will [is injured]. This is clear from the meaning of 'burning' as injuring or wiping out the good of love. The reason for saying 'in the will' is that the good of love belongs to the will, whereas the truth of faith belongs to the understanding, 9050, 9051. And the reason for saying 'the inward part' of the will is that 'wound', dealt with below, means an injuring or the wiping out of an aspect of love present in the outward part of the will. Here, as in the previous paragraphs, injuries done both in the internal man and in the external man are dealt with. For injuring the inner part of the understanding is meant by 'eye' and injuring the outer part by 'tooth', and injuring the power of truth in the internal man is meant by 'hand' and injuring the power in the external man by 'foot', as has been shown; thus injuring the will in the internal man is meant by 'burning' and injuring the will in the external man by 'wound'.

[2] A person has inward and outward parts of his will, just as he has inward and outward parts of his understanding, which are dealt with in 9050, 9051. The inward part of his will resides where the inward part of his understanding resides, and the outward part of his will resides where the outward part of his understanding resides. They must be joined together; for where truth resides, so does good, and where good resides, so does truth. Truth without good is not truth, and good without truth is not good. For good is the essential being (esse) of truth, and truth is the manifestation (existere) of good; and the situation with a person's understanding and his will is the same, in that the understanding is dedicated to receiving truth and the will to receiving good. From this it is evident that when a person is being regenerated the Lord gives him a new understanding through the truths of faith, and a new will through the good of charity, and that both must be present and also joined together if the person is to be regenerate.

[3] The reason why 'burning' means injuring the good of love is that love is meant by 'fire', 934, 2446, 4906, 5071, 5215, 6314, 6832, 6834, 6849, 7324 (end), 7575, 7852; and what injures the good of love is evil desire blazing up from self-love. For this desire is called 'burning', 1297, 5215. Evil desire is also meant by 'branding' in Isaiah,

Instead of fragrance there will be rottenness, and instead of a girdle, a falling apart, and instead of well-set hair, baldness, and instead of a robe, a girding of sackcloth, branding instead of beauty. Isaiah 3:24.

This refers to 'the daughter of Zion', by which the celestial Church, that is, the Church governed by love to the Lord, is meant, 2362, 6729. 'Branding' here is evil desire stemming from self-love.

[4] Anyone who does not know that there is an internal sense in the Word thinks that the proud adornments worn by the daughters of Zion as described in verses 16-24 of that chapter mean such adornments, and that because of such things among the daughters of Zion the Jewish and Israelite people were to be punished and - as said in verses 25, 26 - to fall by the sword. But the reality is altogether different from this. The spiritual and celestial beauties of the Church are what are meant by those adornments. It becomes clear to anyone who reads the Word that 'the daughter of Zion' is not used in the Word to mean the daughter of Zion, provided that he turns to and considers those places in the Prophets where Zion and the daughter of Zion are mentioned. From these he will see that the daughter of Zion is the Church.