Puna

 

A Ransom for Many - What can that mean?

Ni 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.

Ang Bibliya

 

Luke 13:32

pag-aaral

       

32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Mula sa Mga gawa ni Swedenborg

 

Arcana Coelestia # 5248

Pag-aralan ang Sipi na ito

  
/ 10837  
  

5248. 'And changed his clothes' means the change made so far as coverings of the interior natural were concerned, by the putting on of what was rightly suited to this. This is clear from the meaning of 'changing as removing and casting aside, and from the meaning of 'clothes' as the coverings of the interior natural, dealt with below. The putting on of what was rightly suited, meant by 'new clothes', follows on from this. Frequent reference is made in the Word to clothes, by which are meant lower or outward things which, being such, serve to cover higher or inward ones. 'Clothes' consequently means the external part of man and therefore what is natural, since this covers the internal and the spiritual part of him. In particular 'clothes' means truths that are matters of faith since these cover forms of good that are embodiments of charity. This meaning of 'clothes' has its origin in the clothes that spirits and angels are seen to be wearing. Spirits are seen dressed in clothes that have no brightness, whereas angels are seen dressed in clothes full of brightness and so to speak made of brightness. For the actual brightness that surrounds them looks like a robe, much like the Lord's garments when He was transfigured, which were 'as the light', Matthew 17:2, and 'glistening white', Luke 9:29. From the clothes they wear one can also tell what kinds of spirits and angels they are so far as truths of faith are concerned since these are represented by their clothes, though only truths of faith such as exist within the natural. The truths of faith such as exist within the rational are revealed in the face and in the beauty it possesses. The brightness of their garments has its origin in the good of love and charity, for that good shines through and is the producer of the brightness. From all this one may see what is represented in the spiritual world by clothes and as a consequence what is meant in the spiritual sense by 'clothes'.

[2] But the clothes which Joseph changed - that is, cast aside - were those of the pit or prison-clothing, which mean the delusions and false ideas that are stirred up by evil genii and spirits in a state involving temptations. Consequently the expression 'he changed his clothes' means a casting aside and a change made in the coverings of the interior natural. And the clothes which he put on were ones such as were properly suitable, so that the putting on of what was rightly suited is meant. See what has been stated and shown already regarding clothes,

Celestial things are unclothed, but not so spiritual and natural ones, 297.

'Clothes' are truths, which are of a lower nature when they are compared with what they cover, 1073, 2576.

'Changing one's garments' was representative of the need to put on holy truths, and therefore 'changes of garments' had the same meaning, 4545.

'Rending one's clothes' was representative of mourning on account of the loss of truth, 4763.

What is meant by someone entering who was not wearing a wedding garment, 2132.

  
/ 10837  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Society for the permission to use this translation.