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 the release of many from bondage or captivity as a fait accompli when he died.
Ransoms always secure release from captivity. When the debt or the payment is made, the captive is free. The debt or the payment does not need to be paid again. Therefore, Jesus ransomed a definite many in mind—with his own dear life at the time of his death—yes, even before they exercised faith in him. Did he not die efficaciously before the redeemed placed faith in him?
Matthew records that Jesus said: “ . . . no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him,” and those chosen are those he had in mind when he gave up his life for their redemption. His ransoming was not wasted, nor was it an act of gross over-payment for those who had not been chosen for the privilege of being redeemed, who will not gain from the cost of Christ’s death, and who are to refuse any benefit that they might have gained from it on account of their stubborn will.
Actually, Universalists are logical in the sense that they perceive a ransom is effective by its nature and, believing in its natural effectiveness, contend all men will be saved when all are helpless to ransom themselves. Yet, Jesus’ ransom is recorded as being only for many, if we may express it that way to any expense of making it appear too restrictive.
The ransom through Jesus ought not to be deemed restrictive or limited, since “many” stand for a large number. “Limited atonement” is somewhat an unfortunate term that has been used historically for the acronym TULIP. TULIP as acronym has an early twentieth century origin and was popularized in the 1930s by Boetner that reflects the effort in the seventeenth century of Dutch Calvinists to help sum up the five salient points of Calvinism that were opposed by the Remonstrants. “Limited atonement” is only a satisfactory term if it is employed to combat what is viewed as the error that Christ died effectually for all people.
Matthew 26:26–28: “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and after blessing it broke it and gave it to his disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body’. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, ‘Drink it all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’ ”
Preceding what is now known as the Lord’s Supper, Jesus had announced at the Passover Meal that one of the Twelve would betray him. When one after the other asked Jesus whether or not if it was him, Jesus then said, “He who has dipped (emphasis mine) his hand in the dish with me will betray me.” The meal in which the bread was dipped was the Passover, originally distinguished from the Lord’s Supper. The lamb of the Passover was eaten together with bread dipped in a dish composed of a broth of mashed fruit, water and vinegar. In all likelihood Judas Iscariot slipped out from the company after the Passover part of the evening, ensuring he had sufficient time to carry out his betrayal of Jesus.
Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper on the heels of the Passover (v.26), it becoming obvious that his imminent death would be a fulfillment or a filling out to the full of what the Passover had signified to the Jews down the centuries.
If Judas Iscariot was still present in the company of Jesus and the other disciples when the Lord’s Supper was finally commemorated, it is difficult to imagine Jesus saying without discrimination “Take, eat, this is my body” and “Drink of (the cup), all of you,”—when Jesus had already stated of his betrayer, “ . . . woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed”, and when he added “It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”
Jesus was establishing a covenant through his death, a covenant embracing forgiveness of sins. It is hard to conceive that such a covenant was being made with a man who would have been better off if he had not been born.
It is to be noted that the covenant was to be established for the sake of those who were destined to receive a new heart from God, just as the Old Testament promise declared. Only if God grants a new heart does anyone enter into the covenant Jesus was to seal with his blood. There was an old covenant—an old covenant that resulted only in old hearts, hearts incapable of desiring to walk in the ways of God. The former covenant was restricted to the Jews, but it had failed because Israel could not keep her part of it. It was prophesied that another covenant that was to be established with Israel would be superior because God would give his people a new heart so that they could not fail to walk in his ways.
Ezekiel 36:25 says—“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean of all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statues and be careful to obey my rules.”
This was the new covenant Jesus was bringing about by the pouring out of His blood. Forgiveness of sins would pave the way for the many to possess a new heart by the Holy Spirit for obedience to God.
We do not hold that the New Covenant is confined only to God’s ancient people. Even though the Old Covenant was exclusive to those people, it is not inconceivable that the New Covenant embraces “many” more people—in addition to the believing of Israel. The New Covenant embraces the many and any to whom God gives a new heart.
Note that even before Christ came, God told Moses that he would have mercy on whom he would have mercy, so that among the whole chosen race of Israel God chose more narrowly some as objects of mercy, therefore there was an election within an election. It could be said that even under the Old Covenant many were the objects of God’s mercy, and not all who descended from Israel belonged to Israel (Rom. 9:6).
The New Covenant is more embracing than the Old in terms of many more becoming subject to God’s favor, as stemming from grace overflowing to Gentiles but, if the particularism in favor of Israel
