The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

PAUL GARNET 363
Melchizedek (11QMelch [= 11Q13] 2.4–8). This is the strongest link
with the kpr root via the LXX that we have thus far discovered.
What does provide an even stronger link via the LXX is the word
kôpher, which is usually translated by the plural word lu&tra (lytra), ransom
payments. The word occurs in the singular in Mark 10:45: “The
Son of Man came to serve and to give his life [yuxh&, psyche = #pn, nephesh]
as a ransom [lu&tron, lytron] for many.” The vocabulary seems to join
Isaiah 43 (by way of contrast) with Isaiah 53 (idea of servant and “the
many”). Now the message of Isaiah 43 (as in v. 3), that Gentiles would
be the kôpher for Israel at the restoration, was quite welcome at Qumran
and in contemporary Judaism as a whole. Mark 10:45, I believe, is the
port of entry between the ocean of Judaism, as exemplified at Qumran
and elsewhere, and the continent of NT atonement teaching.
We might ask in connection with Mark 10:45, “To whom is the ransom
paid?” In that case it would surely help to reflect on the appropriateness
of the question by trying to ask the same question in connection
with Isa 43. To whom did God pay Egypt as a ransom for Israel (presumably
at the exodus)? The answer could be “To the Red Sea” or “To
the destroying angel.” But when the question is repeated in terms of Prov
21:18 (the wicked is a ransom for the righteous) or of the DSS amalgamation
of these two (God has given the wicked as our ransom: 1Q34
frag. 3 1.4–6), we must conclude that the question is not very relevant.
These ransom sayings are a metaphor for the thought that the fall of
Israel’s enemies is inevitably connected with the rise of Israel. As the
enemies go down, Israel comes up. This fits in with the theme in
Deuteronomy 28 (vv. 13, 45) of Israel being the head when faithful to the
covenant, but the tail when unfaithful, and with Isaiah’s statements about
the fall of Babylon (13:1–14:2). What then of the ransom saying of Jesus?
Against this background it would mean that the blessing of the many is
to be inevitably connected with his death, without the person or thing
receiving the ransom being particularly in view. If Isaiah 53 is also being
alluded to (in view of the term “the many” and of the servant theme), we
might say the kôpher here is not so much a ransom as an atoning sacrifice,
and thus offered to God. The idea of inevitability would cohere with the
sayings about the necessity of his forthcoming death: “The Son of Man
must suffer” (Mark 8:31; 9:12; cf. 10:34, 38). This “must” has usually
been interpreted as referring to the necessity of Scripture being fulfilled,
but perhaps the necessity is simply inherent in the kôpher idea.
This ransom saying is taken up in 1 Tim 2:6 and universalized:
“[Christ] gave himself a ransom [a)nti/lutron, antilytron] on behalf of
[u(pe&r, hyper] all.” Now the Jesus saying was literally “a ransom [lytron]