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.

3527. 'And I am a smooth man' means the nature of natural truth compared with natural good. This is clear from the representation of Jacob, to whom 'I' refers here, as the natural as regards truth, dealt with in 3305, and from the meaning of 'a smooth man' as the nature of it, which is dealt with below. Before anyone can know what these words mean he needs to know what 'hairy' means and what 'smooth' means. The inner things present in a person manifest themselves outwardly in some visible form, especially in his face and facial expressions. The things that are inmost within him are not seen there at the present day, only to some extent things less interior than those inmost ones. But not even these are seen, if he has learned since early childhood to employ presence, for in that case he adopts so to speak a different disposition of mind (animus) and as a consequence produces a different facial expression - it being the disposition of mind (animus) that shows in the face. Hypocrites more than all others have become steeped in such presence from actually behaving, and so becoming accustomed to behave in such ways; and the more deceitful they are the more thoroughly are they steeped in it. With people who are not hypocrites rational good is seen in the face as the manifestation of a certain fire of life, and rational truth as the manifestation of the light of that fire. These matters a person is aware of from a certain innate knowledge without having to learn them, for it is the life of his spirit as regards good and as regards truth that manifests itself in this way. And because man is a spirit clothed with a body he knows about such a thing as this from a perception of it in his spirit, and so is aware of it from within himself. This is why a person is on occasions stirred with affection by another's facial expression, though it is not the facial expression that stirs him but the disposition of mind shining through it. The natural degree of the mind however reveals itself in the face as a more obscure fire of life and more obscure light of life, while the bodily degree scarcely does so as more than a warm and bright complexion, and as the change of their states in accordance with affections.

[2] Because the inner things present in a person manifest themselves thus in a visible form, especially in the face, the most ancient people - who were celestial and had no knowledge at all of what it was to employ presence, let alone of what hypocrisy or what deceit was - were able to see the mind of another plainly revealed in his face. For this reason the face also meant things of the will and those of the understanding, that is, interior rational things as regards good and truth, 358, 1999, 2434. Indeed those interior things as regards good were meant by the blood and its redness, and as regards truths by the form resulting from it, and its pure whiteness. But interior natural things were meant by things growing out of these, such as hairs and scales are; that is to say, things stemming from the natural as regards good were meant by 'hairs' and those stemming from the natural as regards truth by 'scales'. Consequently people governed by natural good were called 'hairy men' whereas those governed by natural truth were called 'smooth men'. These considerations show what these words 'Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man' mean in the internal sense, namely the nature of natural good compared with natural truth, and the nature of natural truth compared with natural good. From this it is also evident what Esau represents, that is to say, the good of the natural; for he was called Esau because of his hairiness, Genesis 25:25, and Edom because of his ruddiness, Genesis 25:30. And Mount Seir where he dwelt also has a similar meaning, namely, shaggy. This being so, the mountain that led up to Seir was called the bald or smooth mountain, mentioned in Joshua 11:17; 12:7, which was also the representative of truth leading upwards to good.

[3] 'Hairy' has reference to good and from this to truth, and also in the contrary sense to evil and from this to falsity, as has been shown in 3301. But 'smooth' has reference to truth and in the contrary sense to falsity, as is also evident from the following places in the Word: In Isaiah,

You who inflame yourselves among the gods under every green tree, among the smooth [stones] of the valley is your portion. Isaiah 57:5-6.

Here 'inflaming' has reference to evil, 'smooth [stones] of the valley' to falsity. In the same prophet,

The craftsman encourages the smith, the one rubbing smooth the hammer by his striking the anvil, and says of the soldering. It is good. Isaiah 41:7.

Here 'the craftsman encourages the smith' has reference to evil, 'the one rubbing smooth the hammer' to falsity. In David,

Butter makes his ¹ mouth smooth; when his heart draws near, his words are softer than oil. Psalms 55:21.

Here 'a smooth mouth' or flattery refers to falsity, 'heart' and consequent soft words to evil. In the same author,

Their throat is an open sepulchre, they speak smooth things with their tongue. Psalms 5:9.

'Throat is an open sepulchre' refers to evil, 'tongue speaking smooth things' to falsity. In Luke,

Every valley will be filled, and every mountain and hill will be brought low; and the crooked places will be made straight, and the rough places into level ways. Luke 3:5.

'Valley' stands for what is lowly, 1723, 3417, 'mountain and hill' for what is exalted, 1691. 'The crooked made straight' stands for turning into good that evil which is due to ignorance, for 'length' and things to do with length have reference to good, 1613; 'rough places into level ways' stands for turning into truths those falsities which are due to ignorance - 'way' having reference to truth, 627, 2333.

Mga talababa: