The Scandal of God’s Forgiveness. Edmond Smith
mind when the above terminology was always employed initially to describe those for whom Christ died, whenever the gospel was preached. All Jews and Gentiles were to hear the gospel as far as possible and, by hearing the good news, “the world” as comprising Jew and Gentile was simply in mind. Such terminology as the “world”, strictly speaking, did not have in mind the chosen for whom only Christ died.
I. Still, since God passed over all nations and chose only Israel for his revelation in ancient days, it became evident that God still exercises his prerogative to forgive. The ancient word directed to Moses is taken up by Paul when he contemplates the mercy of God for Jew and Gentile: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
In the following pages attention is paid to passages in the New Testament where the Jewish perspective should come into contextual play and elucidate our minds about the way to define such terminology as “the world”, “the whole world,” “all” and “many”—all this as related to election and predestination, to God’s prerogative to forgive, as to the subject of exactly who are the people for whom Christ died.
While it would be rare for anyone to question the right of a secular governing authority to grant a pardon for any one offender in a prison, when all may remain condemned and remain justly condemned so as to still suffer punishment and not receive a pardon, among Christians there are those of us who consider it scandalous to think that God chooses some for eternal salvation and exercises his prerogative to forgive them upon sending his Son specifically to die for them only. In the following pages calmly and objectively we need to survey exactly what the New Testament teaches about such things, particularly through Jewish eyes.
Redemption in Matthew
Matthew 1:21: “She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
While it may be true that Jesus saves Gentiles as well as Jews from their sins, there is no doubt that in this instance of Joseph receiving a prophecy through a dream about the birth of Jesus to his betrothed Mary, we are to understand “his people” to mean the ethnic people of Jesus: As Jesus was born a Jew, so he was to save those of his ethnic race. Jesus’ name also was a Jewish name, thus intimating whom he would save. Moreover Joseph would have understood “his people” to mean nobody but his own people and Jesus’ people—those of Israel.
Jesus’ other name of Immanuel at birth stood for ‘God with us’, that is, ‘God with Israel’, as Isaiah understood it.
Matthew goes on to relate the search that the Magi made in Jerusalem: “Where is he who has been born King of the Jews?” It is interesting that such a question should be so framed as coming from those who allegedly were Gentiles by birth. Theirs was an acknowledgement that Jesus was to become King of the Jews. Their question or belief endorsed the prophecy concerning a ruler of Judah that would be born in Bethlehem and who would rise to become “the shepherd of my people Israel” (2:6, NIV).
R.C.H. Lenski, a twentieth century Lutheran commentator, who generally held erroneously to the term “the spiritual Israel or all believers” wherever ‘Israel’ is mentioned in the New Testament, in commenting on Matt 1:21 showed how he was not completely entrenched in that opinion by expressing the following: “It is impossible to give a double meaning to ‘His people’: first the people of Israel, and secondly the spiritual Israel and all believers. The two fail to harmonize. If faith and the actual appropriation of salvation is to be the mark of laos autou, then only a small part of the Jewish nation is included in the second meaning.” For Lenski “his people” may stand for a small part of the Jews (only believing Jews). However, salvation for Lenski is broader than that, therefore for Lenski laos autou here represents believing Gentiles as well as believing Jews. Lenski goes on to contend that Jesus “by delivering (a small number of believing) Jews . . . would deliver all nations.” Yet, it is more natural to assume laos autou in Joseph’s mind applied to the Jewish people alone.
We can state this without denying Gentiles were destined to be saved of their sins as well. The prophecy given to Joseph must be seen through Jewish eyes. It refers to ethnic Israel, even though it may only apply, strictly speaking, to believing Jews in any time to come.
It can also be said that inherent in Matt 1:21 is the doctrine of divine sovereignty in salvation. A sound rendering of the angel’s words to Joseph emphasizes autos: “He—he alone—will save his people from their sins.” Even if faith is viewed as a necessary appropriation for salvation, the foundation of salvation is fundamentally Christ’s unique accomplishment in redemption, meaning that faith itself is divinely and graciously given to those favored with salvation, since it is Christ—he alone- who saves his people from their sins. It is divine sovereignty and divine determination that ensures salvation will succeed—“He—he alone—will save His people.”
Matthew 20:28: . . . “even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Towards the close of Jesus’ public ministry, the mother of the sons of Zebedee approached Jesus in the hope of securing the thrones beside Jesus when he gains his kingdom. The other apostles were indignant at such a request, but Jesus speaks to all of them about the need to serve one another, since to be first is to serve. Then Jesus seizes the moment to refer to humble service in the third person (“the Son of Man”) as to himself, for he came to serve in a service that would indeed be ‘great’ (see v.26) through the giving of his life as a ransom for many.
Whatever else may be said about Jesus styling himself as the Son of Man, a close look at Daniel 7 reveals the Son of Man stands in stark contrast to the four beasts which appear first of all in Daniel’s dream. The Son of Man by contrast is unbeastlike, both with a consciousness and a destiny of an everlasting kingdom, reigning with redeemed men and reigning over unredeemed men ultimately and universally. Such a divine rule, one of great authority (v. 25f.), could not be established without the Son of Man serving many by giving his life as a ransom.
Jesus as the Son of Man, and unbeastlike, was to be very conscious of ‘the many’ when he actually gave his life as a ransom. He died as one for the many. Perhaps we are not meant to press ‘many’ too much as a disparity alongside ‘few’ or ‘all’, since the emphasis is more on Jesus dying as one Man in place of many. All the same, when “ransom” is considered, the “many” stands for a large number to be ransomed by one who alone has the power to ransom.
Barely can anyone suggest “many” by necessity stands for “the majority of people.” Universalists may gun for a ransom through Jesus’ death being a complete and effectual ransom for all people so that all will be saved, but “many” as a term suggests a restriction of those redeemed.
For the ransom to be effectual, what exactly does “many” stand for? Is it that all the world’s people are potentially redeemed but, for the ransom to become effectual in actual fact, faith (contrary to what classical Universalists acknowledge) must appropriate the salvation offered through the ransom? Yet, even among all those who acknowledge the necessity of faith to appropriate the offer made to we sinners, two camps mainly exist: There are those who contend that the offer of salvation via the ransom can be resisted by any person to their loss so that the effectiveness of the ransom rests on the freedom of the human will, while there are those who concede the offer may even be resisted for a time but eventually the divine will prevails and persuades with the result that the actual ransom of any or many is divinely bound to come into effect and not be in vain.
It could well be that the original hearers—the Twelve—understood Jesus to mean by ‘many’ many merely in Israel, since much is predicted about the ransoming of Israel in Old Testament predictions. Still, whoever is considered the subjects of the “many”—whether Jew of Gentile—the nature of such a ransom remains to be considered.
What exactly was accomplished in Jesus’ ransoming? What is meant by a ransom per se?
If a ransom is “the securing of the release of a person . . . from bondage, captivity . . . upon payment,” then by nature of what is normally regarded as a ransom, Jesus must have secured