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.

371. (iii) The link with the Lord is reciprocal, so that the Lord is in the person, and he is in the Lord.

Scripture teaches, and the reason too can see, that the link is reciprocal. The Lord teaches that His link with the Father is reciprocal, for He says to Philip:

Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? Believe me, I am in the Father, and the Father is in me, John 14:10-11. So that you may know and believe that the Father is in me and I am in the Father, John 10:38.

Jesus said, Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son too may glorify you, John 17:1.

Father, all that is mine is yours, and all that is yours is mine, John 17:10.

The Lord's description of His link with man is similar, that is, as being reciprocal; for He says:

Remain in me and I in you. He who remains in me, and I in him, bears much fruit, John 15:4-5.

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him, John 6:56.

On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you, John 14:20.

If anyone performs Christ's commands, he remains in Christ and Christ in him. 1 John 3:24; 4:13.

If anyone shall confess that Jesus ¹ is the Son of God, God remains in him, and he in God. 1 John 4:15.

If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I shall come in to him, and dine with him, and he with me, Revelation 3:20.

[2] These plain statements make it obvious that the link between the Lord and man is reciprocal; and it follows inevitably from this that a person ought to link himself with the Lord, so that the Lord may link Himself with him. It also follows that the consequence would otherwise be not linking, but removal and separation, though this is not on the Lord's part, but on man's. In order to make the link reciprocal, man has been given free choice, allowing him to set foot on the road to heaven, or the road to hell. This gift of freedom is the source of man's ability to reciprocate, so that he can link himself with the Lord or with the devil. But more illustrations will be offered of that freedom, its nature and the reason it has been given to man, in the following chapters dealing with free will, repentance, reformation and regeneration, and imputation.

[3] It is to be deplored that the reciprocal linking of the Lord and man, despite the clarity of its statement in the Word, is still unknown to the Christian church. The reason for this ignorance is the theories held about faith and free will. The theories about faith are that faith is conferred without man contributing anything to its acquisition, or adapting himself to receive it or making any more effort than a block of wood. The theories about free will are that man has not so much as a grain of free will in spiritual matters. But to prevent the reciprocal linking of the Lord and man, on which the salvation of the human race depends, from remaining any longer hidden in ignorance, I am compelled to make it known; and there is no better way of doing this than through illustrative examples.

[4] There are two kinds of reciprocation leading to linking: one is alternate, the other mutual. Alternate reciprocation leading to linking can be illustrated by the breathing of the lungs. A person inhales air, using it to expand the chest, and then expels the inhaled air, so contracting the chest. The act of inhaling and the consequent expansion is effected by means of the force exerted by the atmospheric pressure; but the expulsion of air and consequent contraction is effected by means of the muscular effort operating on the ribs. Such is the reciprocal link between the air and the lungs, and on it depends the functioning of the senses and movement throughout the body; for if respiration ceases, both of these fail.

[5] Reciprocal linking by alternate action can also be illustrated by the heart's link with the lungs and the lungs' link with the heart. The heart supplies blood from its right chamber to the lungs, and the lungs return it to the left chamber of the heart. This produces a reciprocal link, and on it the life of the whole body is totally dependent. There is a similar link of the blood with the heart, and of the heart with the blood; the blood from the whole of the body flows through the veins into the heart, and flows out of the heart through the arteries to the whole of the body, so that its action and reaction constitute a link. There is a similar action and reaction, which keeps a link in being, between the embryo and the mother's womb.

[6] However, the reciprocal link between the Lord and man is not of this sort; it is a mutual link, achieved not by actions and reactions, but by co-operation. For the Lord acts, and the man receives the action from the Lord, and works as if of himself, to be precise, of himself from the Lord. This working on the man's part coming from the Lord is imputed to him as if it were his, since he is perpetually kept by the Lord in a state of free will. The freedom which he has in consequence is the ability to will and think from the Lord, that is, from the Word, and also the ability to will and think from the devil, that is, contrary to the Lord and the Word. The Lord gives man this freedom so that he can enter into a reciprocal link, and by its means be granted everlasting life and blessedness; for this is unattainable without a reciprocal link.

[7] This kind of mutual reciprocal link too can be illustrated by various features of man and the world. Such is the link between the soul and the body in each individual. Such is the link between the will and action or between the thought and speech. Such is the link between the two eyes, the two ears and the two nostrils. The linking of the two eyes being, in its own fashion, reciprocal, is clear from the optic nerve; in this fibres from either hemisphere of the brain are twined round one another, and thus entwined proceed towards either eye. The case with the ears and nostrils is similar.

[8] There is a similar mutual reciprocal link between light and the eye, sound and the ear, smell and the nose, taste and the tongue, and touch and the body. For the eye is in light and light is in the eye, sound is in the ear and the ear is in sound, smell is in the nose and the nose is in smell, taste is in the tongue and the tongue is in taste, and touch is in the body and the body is in touch. This sort of reciprocal linking can also be compared with that of a horse with a carriage, that of an ox with a plough, that of a wheel with a machine, that of a sail with the wind, that of a flute with the air. To sum up, such is the reciprocal link between end and cause, or between cause and effect. There is, however, no room to explain all these one by one, since it would take a great many pages.

Footnotes: