Mt 20-8= Mk lo-is has been assailed (by Baur, etc.), but surely without the sliglitest grounds (cf. Ritschl, ii. p. 42 tt'. ; Denney, p. 8(5 f.). Its mean- ing also must be interpreted by the fact that Clirist's own mind at the time of uttering it was full of the thought of His death. It is His ' life ' He gives, and He startles by saying that He yields it up as a Xvrpov avri ttoWwv. He declares, further, that it was for tliis very end He came. His death was neither unforeseen, nor simply submitted to. He came to redeem the world by ottering Himself as a ' ransom ' for it. No doubt it is possible to empty the saying of most of its significance by generalizing it to mean that in .some undefined way Christ's death would be of great saving- benefit to mankind, and therefore might be spoken of metaphorically as a ransom for the good of many (cf. Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. p. 509 tt'.). This interpretation fails, if account be taken of the redeeming efficacy which Jesus in other places (as in the words at the Last Supper) undeniably attri- butes to His death (see REDEMPTION). Ritschl, though he unduly weakens the force of the word \vTpov, does not fall into any such superficializing. He sees a solemn and weighty import in the words of Jesus, and interprets them to mean that Jesus, by His voluntary and guiltless death, directed to this end, redeems the members of His community from the doom of final annihilation impending over them in the judgment of God, gives death a new character to them, and delivers them from its fear (ii. p. 87). The interpretation cannot be accepted ; neither is it explained how the death of Jesus should ett'ect such a result. Yet Jesus assuredly did view the world as lying under con- demnation of God, sunk in estrangement and evil, and needing both forgiveness and renewal to right- eousness, and redemption from this state He con- nected with His own Person, and in a peculiar way with His death, which He here speaks of as a \vTpov, or redemption-price, to that end. Further investigation mu.st be left to other articles (see Atonement, Reconciliation, Redemption).
The idea of Christ's death as ' a ransom for all ' has ever been a favourite one in the preaching, theology, and hymnology of the Church. In certain circles it early became connected with the fanciful notion that the ransom was paid, not to God, but to the Evil One, who was supposed to have acquired rights over man through sin, which God, in righteousness, could not ignore. Christ's soul, therefore, it was taught, was given up to Satan as the price of the surrender of these assumed rights over mankind. But Satan was deceived in the bargain, for, having obtained possession of the sinless soul of Jesus, he could not hold it. That sinless soul was a torture to him. This theory, connected in the early Church with Origen and Gregory of Nyssa (though Origen, at least, fre- quently expresses himself in a quite contrary sense), prevailed extensively in the Middle Ages, but never really stood alone, or gained ascendency over the abler minds. Distinguished Fathers re- pudiated it, and Anselm reasons against it in his Cur Deas Homo.
Literature.— Ritschl, Recht. und Vers. ii. pp. 51 ff., 192 ff.; Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. p. 511 ff. ; artt. ' Propitiation,' ' Ransom,' in Hastings' DB; Denney, Death of Christ, p. 42 ff. ; Stevens, TheoLoftheNT,p.l2Gti. ' JaMESORR.
RAYEN.— See Animals in vol. i. p. 66\
READER. — The Gospels frequently refer to private reading of Scripture, and Jesus Christ assumes that His iiearers have the sacred books and read them for themselves, e.g. Mk 2-^ 12'"- 2«, Mt 12^, Lk 6*. At Nazareth, Jesiis took the place of tlie public reader in the synagogue (Lk 4^'^).
470
EEADINESS
READINIiSS
The expression, 'Let him tliat readeth understand,' in Mt 24'5, cannot refer to the reading of Dn 9-', because, although Daniel is mentioned earlier in this passage of Mt. {Lc. at v.^^), in Mk.'s parallel passage there is no reference to Daniel (see Mk 13'^). Therefore the words cannot be part of our Lord's utterance, and must be taken as a note interjected by the Evangelist, the writer of his source, or a reviser. Taken thus, they appear to point to the function of the reader in the primitive Cliurch. That this function was kno^\n in very early times is indicated also by Rev P, where public reading is unmistakably indicated, because it is associated with hearing by others : ' Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear,' etc. In this respect, as in many other matters, the order of the Christian assembly was moulded on that of the synagogue. Among the Jews any member of the congregation — even a minor — might be the reader both of the Law and of the Prophets, although if a priest or a Levite were present he should have precedence (Glttin, v. 8). Therefore it was quite in order that Jesus, although neither a scribe nor a synagogue official, should have the Prophet roll handed to Him to read. For this reason we may conclude that the reader in the primitive Church was not a man in any sense ' in orders.' For convenience, the same person might read on every occasion ; but there is nothing to show that this was the case. We do not meet with the reader among the Church functionaries referred to by St. Paul. TurtuUian is the earliest Patristic writer to mention this official (de Preiser. c. 41). In the 3rd cent, he was included among the minor orders (Cyprian, Ejjp. 29, 38, etc.). See Schurer, GJV'^ II. ii. 27 ; Smith's DC A, vol. i. pp. 79, 80 ; Harnack, Sources of the Apostolic Canons, pp. 54-92. W. F. Adeney.