Did Jesus Become a Ransom for Many?

  

            One of the foundational statements in Christian theology is found in Mark 10:45 where Jesus claimed, "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” This verse is often used to prove the exclusivist claims of Christianity when it comes to salvation.     

            Critical New Testament scholarship has raised considerable doubt on whether Mark 10:45 should be accepted as an authentic saying of Jesus Christ.¹ It is alleged that this saying was created by the early church and read back into the life of Jesus. They present four arguments to support their claim.

            First, the critics say that it is out of context. The preceding text shows Jesus teaching his disciples how to live a life of humble service. Peterson asks why Jesus could not present his own life as a model of service and his self-offering in death as the epitome of his service?² This is an argument also explained well by Sydney Page.³

          Secondly, they say that since the verb in the clause “for even the Son of Man came” is in the past tense, it is the work of a later writer reflecting on Jesus’ life. But this overlooks the fact that he spoke many times about his having come and most of these statements are in the past tense (Mat. 5:17, 10:34-35; mark 1:38, 2:17; Luke 12:49, 19:10).⁴

          The third argument is that the saying is inauthentic because it presents an interpretation of Jesus’s death not found elsewhere in the Synoptic gospels. Sydney Page responds to this argument this way: “There is abundant evidence that Jesus anticipated that his life would end violently and that he believed this had been prophesied in Scripture. It is inherently probable that he would have reflected on the meaning of it….That it expressed the mind of Jesus is confirmed by the presence of similar ideas in the words over the cup at the Last Supper.”⁵

          The fourth argument is considered the most important. It points to the absence of this saying in Luke 22:25-27, which otherwise is a close parallel to the passage in Matthew and Mark. All of these passages present the same idea in the same order. But the ransom saying is omitted in Luke. This has led to a claim that the passage in Luke is the original and the other two are embellishment by the early church. Page has responded to this with five arguments of his own, where he shows that Luke places his account in a different historical setting than other Evangelists, and it is not at all certain that he is describing the same incident.⁶

          This is a foundational statement in Christian theology, and we should therefore welcome the critical analysis. When all things are considered, one can conclude with D. A. Carson that “there are no substantial reasons for denying the authenticity of this saying.”⁷

          The traditional view is that the background of the saying is in the fourth Servant Song is Isaiah found in Is. 52:13-53:12. Again, Page justifies the traditional view by pointing out that the Greek ‘lytron’ (ransom) in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 corresponds to Hebrew ‘asam’ (guilt offering) in Isaiah 53:10, despite the fact that it is not used to translate it elsewhere.⁸

          The context of the saying is important. Page shows that the saying provides a climax to the section of the Gospel narratives which begins with Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi.⁹ It is significant that right after Peter’s confession, Jesus speaks openly to his disciples about his death and resurrection (Mark 8:31). Jesus spoke about his death twice more (Mark 9:31, 10:33-34). Considered within the context of Jesus talking about his death three times, the saying reveals his understanding of the meaning of his death.¹⁰ The context clears any doubts about its authenticity.

          It is also important to review the immediate context of the saying. What follows the third mention of his death by Jesus is strange. We see James and John asking permission to sit on his right hand and the left hand in the kingdom of God (Mark 10:37). It shows clearly that these two disciples did not understand the meaning of what Jesus was about to endure. Part of the reason may be Jesus’ statement that they are going to Jerusalem. They were looking at Jesus as “the eschatological Lord who goes to Jerusalem to restore the glory of the fallen throne of David.”¹¹ Lane gives us further insight when he explains it this way:

It is probable that his (Jesus) most direct contact with the expression of power and authority by the petty rulers of Palestine and Syria and the great lord of Rome was through the coins which circulated in the land. To cite only two examples, the denarius that was used for paying taxes portrayed Tiberias as the semi-divine son of the god Augustus and the goddess Liva; the copper coins struck by Herod Philip at Caesarea Phillippi showed the head of the reigning emperor (Augustus, then Tiberias) with the emperor’s name and inscription: “He who deserves adoration. ” In their struggle for rank and precedence and the desire to exercise authority for their own advantage, the disciples were actually imitating those whom they undoubtedly despised.”¹²

Peterson says that the twelve were, therefore, bad examples of leadership. Jesus insisted that his disciples should not be like them. “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all” (Mark 10:43-44). In the ransom saying, Jesus was showing them a good example of leadership. Jesus presents himself as the example of a servant-leader par excellence.¹³ The embodiment of his servant leadership was his self-giving unto death.

The theology of the passage is linked to Jesus’s favorite self-designation as “the Son of Man.” In the Old Testament there are two passages related to this. In Psalm 8:4 we see the mortal, insignificant “son of man,” while in Daniel 7:13-14 we have the exalted, divine “son of man.” Jesus applies both meanings to himself. We see the humble strain in Matthew 8:20, whereas we see the exalted son of man in the statement of Jesus to the High Priest in Mat. 26:64. His expression in the ransom saying that “the Son of Man came” imply his preexistence and points to his mission and purpose. 

Peterson shows that the combination of "giving one's life as a ransom" communicates powerfully against its background in Mark and Psalms. In Psalm 49: 7-9, the Psalmist lamented that 

 None of them can by any means redeem his brother,
            Nor give to God a ransom for him—
8             For the redemption of their souls is costly,
            And it shall cease forever—
9             That he should continue to live eternally,
            And not see the Pit.

What man cannot do has been done by the Son of Man! He gave his life as a ransom for many.  Isaiah 53:12 also foresaw the Servant of the Lord who "bore the sins of many." This is clear proof for the teaching of the Bible about the "substitutionary atonement "through the death of Jesus. 

¹ Peterson, Robert. Salvation Accomplished by the Son. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books (2012) p325

² ibid p326

³ Page, Sydney H. T. “Ransom Saying” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity (1992) p 660-662

⁴ ibid p661

⁵ ibid

⁶ ibid

⁷ Carson, D. A. Matthew, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan (1984) p433

⁸ Page p660

⁹ ibid

¹⁰ Peterson p327

¹¹ Lane, William. Commentary on the Gospel of Mark: The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans (1974) p378

¹² ibid 382

¹³ Peterson p329

(I am heavily indebted to Dr. Robert Peterson for the thoughts here.)