Redemption
Among the figures employed by the apostolical writers to set forth the nature of the transaction by which our Lord has saved His people, none is more illuminating than that which we are accustomed to speak of as redemption. The terms redeem, redemption, redeemer are a gift of the Latin Bible to our theological language. They fail in complete exactness as renderings of the terms which they are used to translate in the apostolical writings, in so far as there still clings to them the notion, intrinsic in their form, that the buying which they denote is distinctively a buying back. The English word ransom, etymologically a doublet of redeem, has more completely lost its etymological implication of specifically buying back, taking on in its stead rather that of buying out. The series ransom, ransoming, Ransomer might on this account serve better as equivalents of the Greek words currently employed by the apostolical writers to convey this idea. These are: [, Mat 20:28, Mar 10:45]; , 1Ti 2:6; , Luk 24:21, Tit 2:14, 1Pe 1:18; , Luk 1:68; Luk 2:38, Heb 9:12; , Luk 21:28, Rom 3:24; Rom 8:23, 1Co 1:30, Eph 1:7; Eph 1:14; Eph 4:30, Col 1:14, Heb 9:15; Heb 11:35; [, Act 7:35]. No words provided by the Greek language could convey more distinctly the idea which we commonly express by the term ransoming. Their current employment by the writers of the NT to describe the action of our Lord in setting His people free is proof enough of itself that this action was thought of by them not broadly as deliverance, but as a deliverance in the distinct mode of ransoming. If deliverance alone, without implication of the mode of accomplishing it, had been what was intended to be expressed, the simple forms , , or some of their strengthened prepositional compounds lay at hand. These were in common use in the sense of delivering, and indeed some of them (like and ) had even acquired the special sense of ransoming. Instead of them, however, the NT writers elected to employ forms which embody in their very structure an open assertion that the mode of deliverance spoken of is by ransom. To say is to say ransom; and to say , , is to say ; while is but a stronger way of saying .
Of course, even words like these, in the very form of which the modal implication is entrenched, and which owe, in fact, their existence to the need of words emphasizing the mode unambiguously, may come to be used so loosely that this implication retires into the background or even entirely out of sight. In our common English usage the words redeem, redemption, redeemer retain no sure intimation of their etymological denotation of buying back, but suggest ordinarily only a buying out. They are sometimes used so loosely as to convey no implication even of purchase. That , , have suffered in their NT usage such a decay of their essential significance cannot be assumed, however, without clear proof. In point of fact, the actual accompaniments of their usage forbid such an assumption. In a number of instances of their occurrence the intimation of a price paid is prominent in the context; in other words, the deliverance spoken of is definitely intimated as a ransoming. In the remaining instances this intimation becomes no doubt rather an assumption, grounded in their form and their usage elsewhere; but that is no reason for neglecting it. The apparently varying usage of the terms depends merely on an oscillation of emphasis between the two elements of thought combined in them. Sometimes the emphasis is thrown on the mode in which the deliverance asserted is wrought-namely, by ransoming. Sometimes, on the other hand, it is shifted to the issue of the ransoming which is affirmed-namely, in deliverance. In the former case the stress falls so strongly on the idea of ransoming that the mind tends to rest exclusively on the act of purchasing or the price paid. In the latter it rests so strongly on the idea of deliverance that we are tempted to forget that an act of ransoming is assumed as its procuring cause. In neither case, however, is either element of thought really suppressed entirely. Christs ransoming of His people is of course always thought of as issuing in their deliverance. His deliverance of His people is equally thought of always as accomplished by a ransoming.
We may be surprised to observe that the epithet Redeemer (Ransomer, ) is never applied to our Lord in the NT. Even the broader designation, Deliverer, is applied to Him only once, and that in a quotation from the OT ( Rom 11:26, from Isa 59:20; cf. 1Th 1:10). In fact, we do not meet with Redeemer () as a designation of our Lord in extant Christian literature, until the middle of the 2nd cent. (Justin, Dial. xxx. 3; cf. lxxxiii. 3), and it does not seem to become common until three centuries later. Nevertheless, Justin himself tells us that it was in ordinary use in the Christian community when he wrote. For we call Him Helper and Redeemer, he says, with an allusion to Psa 19:14. And it seems that in the only instance of the appearance of the term in the NT-Act 7:35, where it is used of Moses-its employment as a designation of our Lord is already pre-supposed. For it is applied to Moses here only as the type of Christ, and with a very distinct reference to the antitype in the choice of the word. The Israelites had demanded of Moses, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? Stephen, driving home his lesson, declares that him who was thus rejected as ruler and judge God has sent both as ruler and as redeemer. The both and is to be noted as well as the change of term. Redeemer is introduced with great emphasis; attention is called markedly to it as a significant point in the argument. Observe, says H. A. W. Meyer, the climax introduced by in relation to the preceding . It is introduced because the obstinacy of the people against Moses is type of the antagonism to Christ and His work (v. 51); consequently, Moses in his work of deliverance is a type of Christ, who has effected the of the people in the highest sense (Luk 1:68; Luk 2:38, Heb 9:12, Tit 2:14) (Commentary on the NT; Acts, vol. i. [1877] p. 204 f.). We must look upon the absence of instances of the application of the epithet Redeemer to Christ in early Christian writers, therefore, as merely a literary phenomenon. Christians were from the first accustomed to speak of their Lord as Redeemer. The usage undoubtedly was not so rich and full in the earlier ages of the Church as it has since become. The intense concreteness of the term probably accounts in part for this. But it was already in use to express the apostolic conception of the function of our Lord as Saviour.
The basis of this apostolic conception is laid in our Lords own declaration, For verily the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many (Mar 10:45, Mat 20:28), a declaration elucidated and enforced in those others, preserved by John, in which He speaks of laying down His life for the sheep (Joh 10:11), or His friends (Joh 15:13), or of giving His flesh for the life of the world (Joh 6:51). In this great declaration our Lord is commending a life of service to His disciples by His own signal example. He adduces His example after a fashion which runs on precisely the lines repeated by Paul in Php 2:5 ff. He calls Himself by the lofty name of the Son of Man, and, by thus throwing the exaltation of His Person into contrast with the lowliness of the work He was performing, He enhances the value of His example to a life of service. He describes His whole mission in the world as service, and He adverts to His ransoming death as the culminating act of the service which He came into the world to render. He, the heavenly man of Daniels vision (Dan 7:13), came into the world for no other purpose than to perform a service for men which involved the giving of His life as a ransom for them. Thus He makes His ransoming death the final cause of His whole manifestation in the world. The terms He employs to describe His death as a ransom are as simple and precise as possible. He speaks of giving his life, emphasizing the voluntariness of the act. He speaks of giving His life as a ransom, using the most exact word the Greek language affords () to express the price paid to secure the release of prisoners, the manumission of slaves (see A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 322 ff., with some of the necessary correctives in T. Zahn, Der Brief an die Rmer, 1910, p. 180, note 51 from the middle), or the purchase of immunity for faults committed against Deity (see F. Steinleitner, Die Beicht im Zusammenhange mit der sakralen Rechtspflege in der Antike, p. 37 f.). He speaks of giving His life as a ransom for, or rather in the place of, instead of, many, the preposition () employed emphasizing the idea of exchange, or, we may say shortly, of substitution. In this declaration, then, our Lord Himself sets forth in language as precise as possible His work of service for man as culminating in the vicarious payment by His voluntary death of a ransom price for them. This is what He came to do; and in this, therefore, is summed up briefly the nature of His work for men.
It would be strange if so remarkable a declaration had produced no echoes in the teaching of our Lords followers. A very distinct echo of it sounds in 1Ti 2:6, where it is declared of the man Christ Jesus, the only Mediator between God and men, that he gave himself a ransom for all. The term employed for ransom here is a strengthened form (), in which the idea of exchange, already intrinsic to the simple form (), is made still more explicit. This idea having thus been thrown into prominence in the term itself, the way was opened to add an intimation of those with whom the exchange is made by means of a preposition which indicates them as beneficiaries of it (). The voluntariness of the ransoming transaction on our Lords part is intimated when it is said that He gave himself a ransom for all, a phrase the full reference of which on Pauls lips may be gathered from Gal 1:4 : who gave himself for our sins (cf. Gal 2:20, Eph 5:2; Eph 5:25). Every element of thought contained in Mar 10:45, Mat 20:28, in a word, is repeated here; and what is there represented by our Lord as the substance of His mission, is here declared by Paul to be the sum of the gospel committed to him to preach. It is the testimony in its own times, whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (1Ti 2:7).
It is only an elaboration of the central idea of this declaration when Paul (Tit 2:14), stirred to the depths of his being by the remembrance of all that he owes to our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, for the epiphany of whose glory he is looking forward as his most blessed hope, celebrates in burning words the great transaction to which he attributes it all: who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works. The fundamental fact thrown up to observation here too is that Jesus Christ gave himself for us. The assertion is the same as that of 1Ti 2:6, and the meaning is the same: our Lord voluntarily gave Himself as a ransom for our benefit. This statement dominates the whole passage, and doubtless has determined the choice of the verb ransom in the first clause of the telic sentence which follows. But it is the effects of this ransoming which are particularly developed. Pauls mind is intent in this context on conduct. He would have his converts live worthily of the grace of God which has come to them, their eyes set upon the recompense of the reward. If Christ gave Himself for our sins, it was that we might sin no more. That is expressed in Gal 1:4 thus: That he might deliver us out of this present evil world. It is expressed here thus: That he might ransom us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works. The two statements have fundamentally the same content, expressed, however, in the one case negatively, and in the other positively. Christ ransomed us by the gift of Himself, that we might no longer belong to the world but to Him. To belong to Christ is to be holy; and therefore those who are His, while still in the world must live soberly, righteously, and godly, expecting His coming, that their deliverance out of this evil world may be completed. The verbs used in the two statements are, however, different. In the one case, the verb employed (, Gal 1:4) declares the effect wrought exclusively, with no intimation of the mode of action by which it is attained: the purpose of Christs giving Himself for our sins is our rescue, deliverance, out of the present evil world. In the other case, the verb employed (, Tit 2:14) has a distinct modal connotation: Christs purpose in giving Himself for us is to ransom us from every iniquity, and thus to purify for Himself a people of His own, zealous of good works. The concept of ransom intrinsic in Christs giving Himself for us is here expressly carried over to the ultimate effects, our deliverance from all iniquity, and our purification for Christ, so that, as B. Weiss puts it, His giving Himself up for our liberation from guilt is conceived as the ransom-price, apart from which these things could not result (Die Briefe Pauli an Timotheus und Titus5, 1885, p. 384 n. [Note: . note.] ). This is only to say, in our current modes of speech, that the ransom paid by Christ, when He gave Himself for us, purchases for us not only relief from the guilt but also release from the power of sin.
How little such a reference to the revolution wrought in the life of Christians empties the term to ransom of its implication of purchase may be learned from 1Pe 1:8 f. Peter is here as completely engrossed with conduct as Paul is in Tit 2:14. He too is exhorting his readers to a life, during their sojourn here expecting the revelation of the Lord, consonant with their high dignity as a people of Gods own possession. And he too seeks to gain force for his exhortation by reminding them of what they owe to Christ their Ransomer. The thing asserted to be secured by this ransoming is, with Peter as with Paul, an ethical deliverance. Knowing, says he, that ye were redeemed from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers (1Pe 1:18). The thought is closely similar to that of Gal 1:4 : That he might deliver us out of this present evil world. If we should be tempted to suppose that, therefore, the term ransomed, as here used, has lost its implication of purchase, and become the exact equivalent of the deliver of Gal 1:4, Peter at once undeceives us by emphasizing precisely the idea of purchasing. The peculiarity of the passage consists just in the fullness with which it dwells on the price paid for our deliverance. Paul contented himself in Tit 2:14 with saying merely that Christ gave himself for us. Peter tells us that this means that He poured out His blood for us. Ransomed here, although used exactly as in Tit 2:14, cannot possibly mean simply delivered. It means distinctively, delivered by means of the payment of a price.
What the price was which Christ paid to ransom us from our vain manner of life, handed down from our fathers, Peter develops with great fullness, both negatively and positively. Negatively, he tells us, it was no corruptible thing, no silver or gold. His mind is running on the usual commodities employed in the ordinary ransomings familiar to everyday life; and we perceive that he intends to represent the ransoming of which Christians are the object as similar in kind to them. It differed from them only in the incomparable greatness of the price paid; and this carries with it the greatness of the evil from which it delivers us and the greatness of the good which it secures for us. The price paid, Peter tells us positively, is the blood of Christ. This blood he characterizes in a two-fold manner. On the one hand, he speaks of it, enhancing its value, as precious. It is at great cost that we have been ransomed. On the other hand, intimating the source of its efficacy, he compares it with the blood of a lamb without blemish and without spot (1Pe 1:19). The sacrificial allusion here is manifest, whether we think (with Hermann Gunkel), through the medium of Is 53, of the ordinary offerings (cf. Lev 23:12), or (with F. J. A. Hort) particularly of the Paschal lamb (cf. Exo 12:5). The main point to observe is that Peter feels no incongruity in blending the ideas of ransom and sacrifice. The blood which Christ shed as a sacrifice is the blood by which we are ransomed. The two modes of representation express a single fact.
Peter does not inform his readers of these things as something new to them. He presents them as matters which are of common knowledge: knowing, as you do, that, etc. It is an appeal to an elementary Christian belief (F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter I. 1-II. 17, p. 75). Of course, then, there are other allusions to them, more or less full, scattered through the NT. There is, for instance, a similar conjunction of the notions of sacrifice and ransom in Heb 9:12. There we are told that Christ, in contrast with the priests of the old dispensation, a high priest of the good things to come, not by means of the blood of goats and calves, but by means of his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place having obtained eternal ransoming. There are not two acts intimated here: by the one shedding of His blood, Christ both entered once for all into the holy place and obtained an eternal ransoming. The correspondence of the once for all in the one clause and the eternal in the other should not be overlooked; it is a binding link assimilating the two assertions to one another. Christ, unlike the Levitical priests with their repeated entrances, entered the holy place once for all, because the ransoming He was obtaining through His blood was not like theirs, temporary in its effect, but eternal, that is to say, of never-failing absoluteness (cf. eternal Spirit, Heb 9:14, eternal inheritance, Heb 9:15). The effect of the sacrificial shedding of Christs blood is here expressed in terms of ransoming.
Precisely how this author conceived this ransoming is made plain by a phrase which he employs three verses further on: a death having taken place for the ransoming of the transgressions. He is still contrasting the effective work of Christ with the merely representative work of the Old Covenant. A promise had been given of an eternal inheritance. But men had not received the heritage which had thus been promised. Their sins stood in the way, and there was no sacrifice which took away sin. Christ had now brought such a sacrifice. In His case a death had taken place for the ransoming of the transgressions which they had committed. Ransoming here conveys a meaning which might have been conveyed by expiation. The term used is not the simple form , but the strengthened form ; and the construction is inexact-it is not the transgressions but the transgressors that are ransomed. But the meaning is plain. The genitive expresses in a wide sense the object on which the redemption is exercised (redemption in the matter of the transgressions, transgression-redemption) (B. F. Westcott, Hebrews, p. 264). It was because men had sinned that they required to be ransomed; sin had brought them into a condition from which they could be delivered only by a ransom. And the ransom required was a death. The matter is put quite generally a death having taken place for ransoming the transgressions. This death was, in point of fact, Christs death; and it was because it was Christs death that it was adequate to its end (Heb 9:14). But the fundamental point in our present passage is that Christ could ransom men from their sins, that is to say, from the consequences of their sins, including, of course, that consciousness of sin which bites into the conscience (Heb 9:14), only by dying. By sacrificing Himself He put away sin (Heb 9:26); He was offered to bear the sins of many (Heb 9:28). The images of sacrifice and of ransoming are inextricably interwoven, but it easily emerges that Christ is thought of, in giving Himself to death, as giving Himself as a ransom-price to deliver men from the guilt and penalties of sin.
This representation meets us again, very tersely put, in Eph 1:7, of which Col 1:14 is a slightly less completely expressed repetition. The ransoming () which is in Christ, described with more particularity in Ephesians again as having been procured through his blood, is in both passages alike identified immediately with the remission of our trespasses (Eph.), or of our sins (Col.). The studied precision, as J. B. Lightfoot phrases it in his note on Col 1:14, with which the ransoming is thus defined to be just remission of sins, is the more noteworthy because it is apparently directly contrasted as such with the wider deliverance () from the power of darkness and removal into the Kingdom of the Son of Gods love, for which it supplies the ground. It is because Christ has at the cost of His blood, that is, by dying for us, purchased for us remission of sins (which is our ransoming), that we have deliverance from the tyranny of darkness and are transferred under His own rule. We thus reach a very close determination of the exact point at which the ransoming act of Christ operates, and of the exact evil from which it immediately relieves us. It relieves us of the guilt and the penal consequences of our sins; and only through that relief does it secure to ns other blessings. It is, at its very centre, just the remission of our sins that we have in Christ when we have in Him our ransoming.
The great passage in which the nature of our ransoming is unfolded for us, however, is Rom 3:24. There, nearly all the scattered intimations of its essential nature found here and there in other passages are gathered together in one comprehensive statement. The fundamental declarations of this very pregnant passage are, that men, being sinners, can be justified only gratuitously, by an act of pure grace on Gods part; that God, however, can so act towards them in His grace, only because there is a ransoming () available for them in Christ Jesus; and that this ransoming was procured by the death of Christ as an expiatory sacrifice, enabling God righteously to forgive sins. The ransoming found-perhaps we may even say stored-in Christ Jesus is here represented as the result of His sacrificial death; this sacrificial death is made the ground of Gods forgiveness of sins; and this forgiveness of sins is identified with the justification which God gratuitously grants believing sinners. The blending of the ideas of ransoming and expiation is complete; the blood of Christ, in working the one, works also the other. The ascription to God of the whole process of justification, including apparently the ransoming act itself, which is usually (but not always) ascribed to Christ, but which is thus traced back through Christ to God, whose will in this too Christ does, is apparently due to the emphasis with which, throughout the passage, the entirety of salvation, in all its elements, is attributed to Gods free grace. This emphasis on the gratuitousness of the whole saving process is the most noticeable feature of the passage. It has been strangely contended (e.g. by T. Zahn) that it is inconsistent with the conception of a ransom, strictly taken. There is, however, not even an antinomy here: the gratuitousness of justification quoad homines cannot possibly exclude the grounding of that act in the blood of Christ, as a ransom paid for men from without. What the passage teaches is, that all men have sinned and have failed to attain the glory God has in mind for them; all are in this matter in like case; those whom God justifies-namely, all believers-are, then, justified freely, by Gods grace alone. But it does not teach that God acts thus, in His free grace, justifying sinners gratuitously so far as they are concerned, arbitrarily and with no adequate ground for His action. On the contrary, it asserts a ground for His justifying act; and the ground which it asserts is the ransoming that is in Christ Jesus. It says, indeed, not on the ground of the ransoming that is in Christ Jesus ( ), but through the instrumentality of the ransoming that is in Christ Jesus ( ). But this is only a formal difference. What Paul says is, that the ransoming that is in Christ Jesus is the means by which men, being sinners, are brought by God into a justification which they cannot secure for themselves. If the ransoming that is in Christ Jesus is the means by which alone they can be justified, that is only another way of saying that God, who gratuitously justifies them in His grace, proceeds in this act in view of nothing in them, but solely in view of the ransoming that is in Christ Jesus. How this ransoming comes to be in Christ Jesus is, then, immediately explained: God has set Him forth as an expiatory sacrifice through faith in His blood, for the manifestation of His righteousness in the forgiveness of sins. Christ, then, has been offered as an expiatory sacrifice; this enables God to forgive sins righteously; those thus forgiven are justified gratuitously; and this justification has taken place in view of, and that is as much as to say by means of, the ransoming which has resulted from the shedding of the blood of Christ. The ransoming provided by Christ is, in a word, the means by which God is rendered gracious; and in this His grace, thus secured for us, He gratuitously justifies us, although we, as sinners, have no claim upon this justification.
The fundamental idea underlying the representation of salvation as a ransoming is its costliness. In some of the passages which have been adduced this idea is thrown very prominently forward. This is the case with Rom 3:24, and, indeed, with all the passages in which Christ is said to have given Himself, or His blood, as a ransom for His people; and it is elaborated in much detail in such passages as Heb 9:12 and 1Pe 1:18 f. But the emphasis often falls no less on the value of the acquisition obtained, and that both on its negative and on its positive sides. Naturally it is the eschatological aspects of this acquisition on which ordinarily most stress is laid. These eschatological aspects of our ransoming are brought very decidedly into the foreground, for example, in Tit 2:14, 1Pe 1:18, and not less so in Heb 9:12, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14. When the mind is thus occupied with the eschatological results of the ransoming, it is apt to be relatively less engaged with the nature of the ransoming act itself, and we may be tempted to read the term ransoming as if its whole implication were absorbed in the simple idea of deliverance. This is, of course, not really the case. The term ransoming is employed instead of one by which nothing more than deliverance would be expressed, precisely because the writer is conscious that the deliverance of which he is speaking has been secured only at a cost, and instinctively employs a term which intimates this fact. It was thus a true feeling which led James Morison (A Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter of Pauls Epistle to the Romans, 1866, p. 254) to insist that by the terms in question is expressed not mere deliverance, but deliverance which is effected in a legitimate way, and in consistency with the rights and claims of all parties concerned. We must, however, go a step further and recognize that the deliverance intimated by these terms is thought of distinctively as resting on a purchase, as, in a word, the issue of a ransoming. This is, at all events, the state of the case with the NT instances.
When we read, for example, in Rom 8:23, that we, in this life, are groaning within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, and then this adoption is defined as the ransoming () of our body, the word ransoming cannot be taken out of hand as merely deliverance, and much less can it be supposed to intimate that a special ransom shall be paid at the last day for the deliverance of the body. What is meant is that the deliverance of our bodies-by which is intended just our resurrection, connected in this context with the repristination of the physical universe, an object as yet of hope only-shall be experienced in due season, not as something with the salvation we are enjoying here and now in its first-fruits, but as its consummation; that is to say, as one of the results of the ransom paid by Christ in His blood on the Cross, from which flow all the blessings which, as believers, we receive. It is because Pauls mind is fixed upon this fundamental ransom-paying that he uses here a term which imports a ransoming and not one of mere deliverance.
Similarly, when we read in the closing words (Eph 1:14) of that splendid hymn of praise which opens the Epistle to the Ephesians, that believers, having received the promised Spirit, defined specifically as the earnest of the inheritance, have been sealed unto the ransoming of the acquired possession, to the praise of Gods glory, every element in the wording of the statement itself, and of the context as well, cries out against seeing in the term ransoming anything else but a reminder that this deliverance is an issue of the ransom-paying of Christ in His blood. This ransom-paying had just (Eph 1:7) been defined as made by Christ in His blood, and as consisting in the remission of our trespasses. As it is impossible to suppose that the term is used in two radically different senses in the same sentence, so it is impossible to imagine that those who are delivered are described expressly as Gods acquired possession, and their deliverance is made dependent upon their reception of the Spirit, described specifically as the earnest of their inheritance, without a very precise intention of connecting this deliverance with the ransom-paying out of which it flows as its consummation. And, this being true, it is quite clear that the day of ransoming of Eph 4:30 does not mean the day on which the ransom shall be paid, nor merely the day of a deliverance wrought somehow or other not intimated, but distinctly the day on which there shall be actually experienced the ultimate results of the ransom-paying which Christ has made through his blood (Eph 1:7), that is, at His death on the Cross, assured to believers, because they are sealed thereto by the Holy Spirit of God, received now as the earnest of their inheritance.
There seems no reason to doubt that the same conception underlies the language of our Lord (Luk 21:28) when He encourages His followers to see in the signs of the coming of the Son of Man, fearful to others, the indications of their approaching ransoming (): But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads; because your ransoming draweth nigh. He does not point them to the time when the ransom which He came into the world to pay (Mar 10:45, Mat 20:28) is at length to be paid for them; neither does He promise them some other deliverance, different from that and disconnected with it, which they might expect some time in the undefined but distant future. He says your ransoming, intimating that it was already theirs in sure expectation; He speaks of it as drawing nigh, recognizing that it was eagerly looked for. He is, of course, pointing to the complete realization of the ransoming of which He speaks in the actual deliverance which shall be experienced. But when He speaks of this deliverance as a ransoming He is equally, of course, referring it as its result to a ransom-paying which secures it; and can we doubt that what was in His mind was His own promise that He would give His life a ransom in the place of many?
This declaration of our Lords (Luk 21:28) may lead us to the two or three passages (all, like it, occurring in Lukes Gospel, Luk 1:68, Luk 2:38, Luk 24:21) which differ from the other instances in which the terms denoting ransoming are employed in the NT, in that they do not have the great basal assertion of our Lord (Mar 10:45, Mat 20:28) behind them, but give expression to hopes nourished on the promises of the Old Covenant. We read of Zacharias, on the birth of his prophetic son, praising the God of Israel, because he hath visited and wrought ransoming () for his people (Luk 1:68); and of Anna, the prophetess, on seeing the infant Jesus in the Temple, giving thanks unto God, and speaking of him to all them that were looking for the ransoming () of Jerusalem (Luk 2:38); and of the two disciples, sorrowing over Jesus death, sadly telling their unknown Companion, as they journeyed together to Emmaus: We hoped that it was he that should ransom () Israel (Luk 24:21). Obviously these passages stand somewhat apart from those which embody the apostolic conception of the nature of the saving work of Christ. They represent rather the anticipations of the faithful in Israel with respect to the salvation promised to Gods people. Their interest to us is due to the use in them of the same terminology to express Israels hope which afterwards was employed by the apostles when they described Christs work as at its root a ransom-paying. As we can hardly ascribe to these aspirations of saints taught by the OT revelation so clearly cut and definitely conceived a conviction that the Divine deliverance for which they were waiting was to be specifically a ransoming, as we have ascribed to the apostolic writers with respect to the deliverance wrought by Christ, the question easily arises whether we have not overpressed the apostles language, and whether it would not be better to interpret their declarations from the vaguer, if we should not rather say the looser or at least the broader, use of the same terms in these earlier passages which represent a usage going back into the OT.
Such has been the method of many expositors (the typical instance is commonly taken from H. Oltramare on Rom 3:24; cf. the corrective in Sanday-Headlam on the same passage). Following it, they have felt entitled or bound to empty the language of the apostles, which literally expresses the idea of ransoming, when speaking of the work of Christ, more or less completely of all such implication, and to read it as conveying merely the broad idea of delivering. This method of dealing with the apostolic usage is, however, quite misleading. The language of the apostles is altogether too definite to permit such a process of evacuation to be carried successfully through with respect to it. Their teaching as to the nature of our Lords work as an act of ransoming is not conveyed exclusively by the implication of the ransoming terms which they prevailingly employ in speaking of it; they use other terms also, of similar meaning, side by side with them (cf. Act 20:28, 1Co 6:20; 1Co 7:23, Gal 3:13, 2Pe 2:1, Rev 5:9; Rev 14:3-4); and they often expound their meaning in the sense of ransoming in great detail. It must not be permitted to drop out of sight that something happened between the prophetic promises of the Old Covenant reflected in the anticipations of the early days of the gospel, and the dogmatic expositions of the nature of the work of Christ by the apostles, which was revolutionary precisely with respect to the conceptions held by Gods people of the nature of His great intervention for their deliverance. We cannot interpret the apostles exposition of the meaning of the death of Christ and the manner in which it produces its effect-which was to them the most tremendous of experienced facts-wholly within the limits of the anticipations of even the most devout of Israelites who, at the best, only dimly perceived the necessity of a suffering Messiah (Luk 20:25 f.). We must expect a precision in defining the mode of Gods deliverance of His people to enter in after the experience of it as a fact, which could not exist before; and that the more, because a model which necessarily dominated all their teaching had been given His followers by our Lord Himself (Mar 10:45, Mat 20:28) for interpreting the nature of His work and the meaning of His death. F. J. A. Hort is certainly right in saying, when speaking of 1Pe 1:19 : The starting point of this and all similar language in the Epistles is our Lords saying in Mat 20:28 || Mar 10:45 (cf. also B. F. Westcott, Ephesians, 1906, p. 140, and even, though more cautiously, A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 331). Moreover, the primary assumption of this method of determining the apostolic usage of these terms is not unquestionable-to wit, that, in their earlier use, running back into the OT, the implication of purchase has dropped wholly out of sight, and only the broad sense of delivering has been retained. It is at least noticeable that the OT persistently employs terms with the implication of purchase, when speaking whether of the great typical deliverances from Egypt and the Captivity or of the greater deliverance typified by them which Jahweh was yet to bring to His people. This is no more a phenomenon of the Septuagint than of the underlying Hebrew; and it does not appear that it is due to a complete decay of feeling for the implication of purchase intrinsic in these terms. No doubt they are sometimes used when we see nothing further necessary for the sense than simple deliverance, and sometimes in parallelisms together with terms of simple deliverance. They are also used, however, when the implication of purchase is express. And we are not encouraged to think that they had ceased to bear their intrinsic meaning to the writers of the OT, even when applied to the greater matters of destiny, whether of the individual or of the nation, by such a passage, say, as Psa 49:7-8 : None of them can by any means redeem (, ) his brother, nor give to God a ransom (, ) for him: (for the redemption [, ] of their life is costly ); or by such a passage as, say, Isa 43:1 ff. Fear not, for I have redeemed thee (, ); I have given Egypt as thy ransom (, ), Ethiopia and Sea for thee. I have loved thee; therefore will I give men for thee, and peoples for thy life. The truth seems to be that the language of ransoming and redemption is employed in the OT to describe the deliverances which Israel had experienced or was yet to experience at the Divine hands, not because this language had lost to the writers of the OT its precise import, but in order to intimate that these deliverances were not, and were not to be, without cost. Even the later Jews were not without some sense of this, and looked about for the purchase-price. With two bloods, says the Midrash on Exo 12:22, were the Israelites delivered from Egypt, with the blood of the paschal lamb and with the blood of circumcision (A. Wnsche, Bibliotheca Rabbinica, ii. [1890] 135, as cited by F. J. A. Hort on 1Pe 1:19, p. 79b). There is no compelling reason, then, why we should not recognize an implication of purchase, however undefined, even in Luk 1:68; Luk 2:38; Luk 24:2 f.
If there be any instance in the NT of the use of a derivative of , from which this implication is wholly absent, it will most probably be found in Heb 11:35, where, in the bead-roll of the heroes of faith, we are told of some who were beaten to death, not accepting the ransoming (), that they might obtain a better resurrection. There is nothing in the context to intimate that the deliverance from their martyrdom which they refused was to be purchased by a ransom. But is anything further needed to carry this intimation than the employment of this particular word, in which the idea of a ransom is included? Is it not possible that the writer has selected this particular word (it is not employed in the account from which he is drawing) precisely in order to intimate that Eleazar and the seven brethren with their mother-if he is really alluding to their cases (2 Maccabees 6, 7)-felt apostasy too great a price to pay for their deliverance? They did not refuse a bare deliverance; they refused a deliverance on a condition, a deliverance which had to be paid for at a price which they rated as too high. The term employed is, at all events, perfectly adapted to express this fact; and the words of this stem, when used elsewhere in this Epistle, retain the implication of purchase (2Ma 9:11; 2Ma 9:15).
There is another passage in which we are practically dependent on the implications of the form itself, without the aid of contextual indications, to determine its meaning. This is 1Co 1:30, where the Apostle, in enumerating the contents of that wisdom which Christ has brought to His followers, orders the several elements, which he mentions, thus: that is to say, righteousness and sanctification, and also ransoming. It is a little surprising to find the ransoming () placed after the righteousness and sanctification, of which it is the condition. We may, therefore, be tempted to give it some looser sense in which it may appear to be conceived as following upon them, if not chronologically, at least logically. There seems to be no justification, however, for departing from the proper meaning of a word which is not only clear in its natural meaning, but is closely defined in other passages in Pauls writings in accordance with this natural meaning. We may think, with Lightfoot and T. C. Edwards, of the eschatological usage of the word, and understand it of redemption consummated in our deliverance from all sin and misery; and suppose it to be mentioned last because referring to the final deliverance, and, therefore, almost equivalent to (Lightfoot, ad loc.; cf. also Edwards, ad loc.). Or we may think with H. A. W. Meyer and C. F. G. Heinrici of its ordinary use as the proper term to designate the act by which Christ purchased His people to Himself by the outpouring of His blood, and suppose it to be mentioned last in the enumeration of the blessings received from Christ, with the emphasis of climax, because it supplies the basis of those further acts of salvation (justification and the gift of the Spirit), by means of which righteousness and holiness are conveyed to believers. The one thing which we cannot easily suppose is that Paul has departed in this one instance from his uniform usage of a word which holds the rank of a technical term in his writings. A. Deissmann cries out: This rare word occurs seven times in St. Paul! (op. cit. p. 331, n. [Note: . note.] 2). The reason obviously is that Paul had something to say which he needed this word to say. Are we to suppose that he might just as well have used the common words, current in everyday speech, for what he had to say?
How little strange the idea of salvation as a thing purchased is to this particular Epistle may be observed from the declaration twice repeated: Ye were bought with a price (1Co 6:20, 1Co 7:23), which Paul uses as an incitement to Christian effort. The addition to the assertion of the verb that we have been bought, of the words, with a price, serves to give great emphasis to the exclusion of all notion that salvation was acquired for us without the payment of an equivalent, and thus to make very prominent the essential idea of exchange which underlies the conception of ransoming. What the price was which was paid for our purchasing is not mentioned in these passages: it was too well understood to require explicit statement. It is similarly taken for granted in the like allusion in 2Pe 2:1, where the false teachers who were vexing the Church are condemned as even denying the Master () that bought them. There is no question that they were bought: this pungent fact is rather treated as the fundamental thing in the consciousness of all Christians, and is therefore employed as a whip to their consciences to scourge them to right conduct towards their Master. In all these instances the stress falls on the ownership over us acquired by Christ by His purchase of us. They therefore naturally suggest the remarkable words of Paul, when, in bidding farewell to the Ephesian elders, he exhorts them to feed the church of God, which he acquired by means of his own blood (Act 20:28). Although, however, not the specific purchased but the broader acquired is employed here, the emphasis is shifted from the mere fact of acquisition and consequent ownership to the costliness of the acquisition, and therefore the price paid for it is not only explicitly mentioned but strongly stressed. God has acquired His Church by means of His own blood, a paradoxical statement which presented no difficulties to Paul and his readers, but rather was freighted with the liveliest gratitude. Whence the church of God was thus acquired by means of his own blood, we learn from the new songs of the Apocalypse. It was purchased out of the earth, from among men (Act 14:3-4), or, more explicitly, of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation (Act 5:9). And here we are reminded again of the great price which was paid for it, and of the great deliverance which was obtained for it at this great cost. The purchase-price was nothing less than the blood of the Lamb, and they that are purchased are loosed (, the primitive of ) from their sins in his blood (Act 1:5), and made unto God a kingdom and priests (Act 1:5, Act 5:10) who shall reign upon the earth (Act 5:10). All the virtues gather to them-they are without blemish (Act 14:5). That nothing should be lacking to the presentation of the whole idea of ransoming outside the term itself, we find Paul employing the exact synonym, to buy out (), to express the common idea. God sent forth his Son, he tells us, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might buy out them under law, that we might receive the adoption of sons (Gal 4:4 f.); Christ bought us out from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (Gal 3:13). Pauls whole doctrine of the ransoming Christ has been compressed into these two sentences. We were under the dominion of law, and have been bought out from it, that we may become rather sons of God and receive the Spirit. We were under the curse of the broken law and had incurred its penalty-the wrath of God and all that the wrath of God means: Christ has bought us out from under this curse. He has done this by becoming Himself a curse for us; that is, by taking the wrath of God upon Himself and enduring the penalty of the broken law in our stead. As a consequence, the blessing of Abraham has come to us, and we have received the promised Spirit.
We have called this Pauls doctrine of the ransoming Christ, and that designation of it is just. The derivatives of occur nowhere except in Pauls own letters and other writings closely affiliated with them (Luke, 1 Peter, Hebrews). The technical term by way of eminence for the expression of this doctrine, , occurs seven times in Paul and but three times elsewhere (Hebrews, twice; Luke, once). From another point of view, however, it deserves to be called a generally apostolic doctrine. It is rooted in distinct teachings of our Lord Himself. It is found clearly enunciated in the whole series of Pauls letters, from Galatians to Titus. It has a place also in the Epistle to the Hebrews, both Epistles of Peter, and the Book of Revelation. Its outlines are so sharply etched in by a touch here and a touch there, as allusion to it is added to allusion, that they cannot be obscured. It is not a doctrine merely of moral reform or even of moral revolution, although it includes in it an effective provision for moral regeneration. It is not a doctrine of deliverance from the world, although again it counts deliverance from the world among its most valued effects. It is not merely a doctrine of deliverance from sin, conceived as a power, although it provides for deliverance from the power of sin. It is most particularly not a doctrine of deliverance from the powers of evil under whose dreadful dominion this world labours, although it is a doctrine of deliverance from bondage to Satan. It is specifically a doctrine of deliverance from the guilt and penalties of sin, with all that flows from this deliverance to the uttermost consequences. The function of Christ in it cannot be reduced to that of a teacher or of an example. It is presented rather as that of a substitute. He gives Himself, His life, His blood, and He gives it as a ransom-price to buy man out from the penalties he has incurred by sin, and thus to purchase for him newness of life. Parallel and intertwined with the doctrine of Christ our Sacrifice, this doctrine of Christ our Ransom is made thus a vehicle of that blood theology which is the very heart of the entire teaching of the apostles, and which has given to Christianity its whole vitality in the world.
Literature.-James Orr, articles Ransom and Redemption in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels , Christian View of God and the World, 1893, p. 333 ff.; the Biblical Theologies of the NT: among the older ones H. J. Holtzmann, Neutest. Theologie, 1896-97, and A. Titius, Die neutest. Lehre von der Seligkeit, 1895-1900; among the later ones, Paul Feine, Theologie des NT, 1910, p. 439 f., has a brief but instructive note, and H. Weinel, Bibl. Theol. des NT2, 1913, pp. 291 and 546, may be profitably consulted. The commentaries of H. Oltramare (1872), J. Morison (1866), Sanday-Headlam (51902), T. Zahn (1910) on Rom 3:24, have extended notes; B. F. Westcott, Hebrews, 1889, p. 297 f., has a detached note of importance; F. J. A. Hort, 1 Peter I. 1-II. 17, 1898, p. 76 ff., has a very valuable note; A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, 1908, p. 232 ff., Eng. translation , Light from the Ancient East, 1911, p. 322 ff., needs the correction of Zahn as cited, and of the facts adduced by F. Steinleitner, Die Beicht im Zusammenhange mit der sakralen Rechtspflege in der Antike, 1913, p. 37 f.; James Denney, The Death of Christ, 1902; also from differing points of view, E. Khl, Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Jesu, 1890; A. Seeberg, Der Tod Christi in seiner Bedeutung fr die Erlsung, 1895; J. F. S. Muth, Die Heilstat Christi als stellvertretende Genugtuung, 1904; M. Khler, Zur Lehre von der Vershnung, 1898; G. B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, 1905, together with his earlier The Pauline Theology, 1892, The Theology of the NT, 1899; E. Mngoz, Le Pch et la Rdemption daprs Saint Paul, 1882. Julius Kaftan has made a particularly sustained effort to interpret the Christian doctrine of ransoming from sin in terms of the general religious idea of deliverance from the world: Dogmatik, 1897, 48; Die christliche Welt, xvi. [1902] 411 ff.; ZTK [Note: TK Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche.] xiv. [1904] 273-355, reprinted in Zur Dogmatik, 1904, pp. 255-337; Jesus und Paulus, 1906, p. 30 ff.; ZTK [Note: TK Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche.] xviii. [1908] 237-292. In connexion with Kaftan there should be consulted: W. Wrede, Paulus, 1904 (Eng. translation , 1907), to which Kaftans Jesus und Paulus is an answer: Wrede, under the same terminology of deliverance from the world, interprets Paul as teaching not, as Kaftan, a purely subjective, ethical redemption, equivalent to regeneration, but an objective one, explained as deliverance from the evil spirits and demons which dominate the world, a notion repeated in H. B. Carr, Pauls Doctrine of Redemption, 1914. See also Max Reischle, Die christliche Welt, xvii. [1903] 10 ff., 28 ff., 51 ff., 76 ff., and 98 ff., the last of which is a criticism of Kaftan. Reischles articles discuss, under the title of Erlosung, the general religious doctrine of deliverance, and in connexion with them should be read E. Nagel, Das Problem der Erlosung: eine religionsphilosophische, philosophiegeschichtliche und kritische Untersuchung, 1901. There seems to be nothing in English which covers the ground of Nagels book; but cf. H. O. Taylor, Deliverance, 1915. Josef Wirtz, Die Lehre von der Apolytrosis. Untersucht nach den heiligen Schriften und den griechischen Schriftstellern bis auf Origenes einschliesslich, 1906, deals very slightly with the biblical material, and, for the rest, investigates the history of the Patristic doctrine of ransoming from Satan.
Benjamin B. Warfield.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
REDEMPTION
In theology, denotes our recovery from sin and death by the obedience and sacrifice of Christ, who, on this account, is called The Redeemer, Isa 59:20. Job 19:25. Our English word redemption says Dr. Gill, is from the Latin tongue, and signifies buying again; and several words in the Greek language of the New Testament, are used in the affair of our redemption, which signify the obtaining of something by paying a proper price for it: sometimes the simple verb, to buy, is used: so the redeemed are said to be bought unto God by the blood of Christ, and to be bought from the earth, and to be bought from among men, and to be bought with a price; that is, with the price of Christ’s blood. 1Co 6:20. Hence the church of God is said to be purchased with it, Act 20:28. Sometimes the compound word is used; which signifies to buy again, or out of the hands of another, as the redeemed are bought out of the hands of justice, as in Gal 3:13. and Gal 4:5. In other places, another word is used or others derived from it, which signifies the deliverance of a slave or captive from thraldom, by paying a ransom price for him: so the saints are said to be redeemed not with silver or gold, the usual price paid for a ransom, but with a far greater one, the blood and life of Christ, which he came into this world to give as a ransom price for many, and even himself, which is an answerable, adequate, and full price for them, 1Pe 1:18. The evils from which we are redeemed or delivered are the curse of the law, sin, Satan, the world, death, and hell. The moving cause of redemption is the love of God, Joh 3:16. The procuring cause, Jesus Christ, 1Pe 1:18-19. The ends of redemption are, that the justice of God might be satisfied; his people reconciled, adopted, sanctified, and brought to glory. The properties of it are these:
1. It is agreeable to all the perfections of God.
2. What a creature never could obtain, and therefore entirely of free grace.
3. It is special and particular.
4. Full and complete.
And,
5, lastly, It is eternal as to its blessings.
See articles PROPITIATION, RECONCILIATION, SATISFACTION; and Edwards’s History of Redemption; Cole on the Sovereignty of God; Lime Street Lect. lect. 5; Watts’s Ruin and Recovery; Dr. Owen on the Death and Satisfaction of Christ; Gill’s Body of Divinity.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
redemption
(Latin: redimo, buy back)
Just as sin consists of a twofold element, namely, guilt (reatus culpaI) and a penalty (reatu8 PamaJ), so too Christ’s Death involves a moral and a penal phase. The moral element is Christ’s obedience and love, the penal element, His Passion and Death. In the Redemption, as it took place historically, the two elements were indissolubly united. Christ’s redeeming and loving obedience took the form of, and expressed itself in, sufferings and death. In this sublime work the Head was intimately associated with His mystic members: “If one died for all, then all were dead.” (2 Corinthians 5) In this whole redeeming work Christ acts as the Head of mankind, is intimately united to the humanity which He came to save. It is in virtue of this solidarity between the race and Christ, its Chief, that His redeeming acts have a value for all His mystic members. In Him we expiate our sins and satisfy Divine justice, in Him we are reconciled to God and God to us. The fundamental reality of the Redemption can be viewed from different aspects. Since Christ is our Head, the relation of His works to His members is similar to that of the works of a just man to himself; and thus Christ by His Passion merited salvation for us. Since this merit has reference to the offense against God and to the remission of sins, it is vicarious satisfaction. Furthermore, since this satisfaction of Our Lord takes place through penal sufferings and an immolation of Himself to God, it is a sacrifice. Finally, when this sacrifice has been accomplished, and the guilt and penalty of our sins expiated, man is redeemed and liberated from the power of sin, of the flesh, and of the devil, and restored to the supernatural state. The Resurrection is an essential complement of the redeeming Death. Christ, says Saint Paul, was “delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification” (Romans 4). It is the risen and glorious Christ Who dispenses to the members of His mystic body the atoning merits and graces of Calvary. Baptism, the initial sacrament by which we appropriate subjectively the graces of the Cross, is viewed by Saint Paul as a mystic death and resurrection with Christ:
“Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? For we are buried together with Him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6).
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Redemption
The restoration of man from the bondage of sin to the liberty of the children of God through the satisfactions and merits of Christ.
The word redemptio is the Latin Vulgate rendering of Hebrew kopher and Greek lytron which, in the Old Testament means generally a ransom-price. In the New Testament, it is the classic term designating the “great price” (1 Corinthians 6:20) which the Redeemer paid for our liberation. Redemption presupposes the original elevation of man to a supernatural state and his downfall from it through sin; and inasmuch as sin calls down the wrath of God and produces man’s servitude under evil and Satan, Redemption has reference to both God and man. On God’s part, it is the acceptation of satisfactory amends whereby the Divine honour is repaired and the Divine wrath appeased. On man’s part, it is both a deliverance from the slavery of sin and a restoration to the former Divine adoption, and this includes the whole process of supernatural life from the first reconciliation to the final salvation. That double result, namely God’s satisfaction and man’s restoration, is brought about by Christ’s vicarious office working through satisfactory and meritorious actions performed in our behalf.
I. NEED OF REDEMPTION
When Christ came, there were throughout the world a deep consciousness of moral depravation and a vague longing for a restorer, pointing to a universally felt need of rehabilitation (see Le Camus, “Life of Christ”, I, i). From that subjective sense of need we should not, however, hastily conclude to the objective necessity of Redemption. If, as is commonly held against the Traditionalist School, the low moral condition of mankind under paganism or even under the Jewish Law is, in itself, apart from revelation no proof positive of the existence of original sin, still less could it necessitate Redemption. Working on the data of Revelation concerning both original sin and Redemption, some Greek Fathers, like St. Athanasius (De incarnatione, in P. G., XXV, 105), St. Cyril of Alexandria (Contra Julianum in P. G., LXXV, 925) and St. John Damascene (De fide orthodoxa, in P. G, XCIV, 983), so emphasized the fitness of Redemption as a remedy for original sin as almost to make it appear the sole and necessary means of rehabilitation. Their sayings, though qualified by the oft-repeated statement that Redemption is a voluntary work of mercy, probably induced St. Anselm (Cur Deus homo, I) to pronounce it necessary in the hypothesis of original sin. That view is now commonly rejected, as God was by no means bound to rehabilitate fallen mankind. Even in the event of God decreeing, out of his own free volition, the rehabilitation of man, theologians point out other means besides Redemption, v.g. Divine condonation pure and simple on the sole condition of man’s repentance, or, if some measure of satisfaction was required, the mediation of an exalted yet created interagent. In one hypothesis only is Redemption, as described above, deemed absolutely necessary and that is if God should demand an adequate compensation for the sin of mankind. The juridical axiom “honor est in honorante, injuria in injuriato” (honour is measured by the dignity of him who gives it, offence by the dignity of him who receives it) shows that mortal sin bears in a way an infinite malice and that nothing short of a person possessing infinite worth is capable of making full amends for it. True, it has been suggested that such a person might be an angel hypostatically united to God, but, whatever be the merits of this notion in the abstract, St. Paul practically disposes of it with the remark that “both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one” (Hebrews 2:11), thus pointing to the God-Man as the real Redeemer.
MODE OF REDEMPTION
The real redeemer is Jesus Christ, who, according to the Nicene creed, “for us men and for our salvation descended from Heaven; and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and became man. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate and was buried”. The energetic words of the Greek text [Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 86 (47)], enanthropesanta, pathonta, point to incarnation and sacrifice as the groundwork of Redemption. Incarnation — that is, the personal union of the human nature with the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity — is the necessary basis of Redemption because this, in order to be efficacious, must include as attributions of the one Redeemer both the humiliation of man, without which there would be no satisfaction, and the dignity of God, without which the satisfaction would not be adequate. “For an adequate satisfaction”, says St. Thomas, “it is necessary that the act of him who satisfies should possess an infinite value and proceed from one who is both God and Man” (III:1:2 ad 2um). Sacrifice, which always carries with it the idea of suffering and immolation (see Lagrange, “Religions semitiques”, 244), is the complement and full expression of Incarnation. Although one single theandric operation, owing to its infinite worth, would have sufficed for Redemption, yet it pleased the Father to demand and the Redeemer to offer His labours, passion, and death (John 10:17-18). St. Thomas (III:46:6 ad 6um) remarks that Christ wishing to liberate man not only by way of power but also by way of justice, sought both the high degree of power which flows from His Godhead and the maximum of suffering which, according to the human standard, would be considered sufficient satisfaction. It is in this double light of incarnation and sacrifice that we should always view the two concrete factors of Redemption, namely, the satisfaction and the merits of Christ.
A. Satisfaction of Christ
Satisfaction, or the payment of a debt in full, means, in the moral order, an acceptable reparation of honour offered to the person offended and, of course, implies a penal and painful work. It is the unmistakable teaching of Revelation that Christ offered to His heavenly Father His labours, sufferings, and death as an atonement for our sins. The classical passage of Isaias (lii-liii), the Messianic character of which is recognized by both Rabbinical interpreters and New Testament writers (see Condamin, “Le livre d’Isaie” Paris, 1905), graphically describes the servant of Jahveh, that is the Messias, Himself innocent yet chastized by God, because He took our iniquities upon Himself, His self-oblation becoming our peace and the sacrifice of His life a payment for our transgressions. The Son of Man proposes Himself as a model of self-sacrificing love because He “is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life a redemption for many” (lytron anti pollon) (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). A similar declaration is repeated on the eve of the Passion at the Last Supper: “Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins” (Matthew 26:27, 28). In view of this and of the very explicit assertion of St. Peter (1 Peter 1:11) and St. John (1 John 2:2) the Modernists are not justified in contending that “the dogma of Christ’s expiatory death is not evangelic but Pauline” (prop. xxxviii condemned by the Holy Office in the Decree “Lamentabili” 3 July, 1907). Twice (1 Corinthians 11:23, 15:3) St. Paul disclaims the authorship of the dogma. He is, however, of all the New Testament writers, the best expounder of it. The redeeming sacrifice of Jesus is the theme and burden of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews’ and in the other Epistles which the most exacting critics regard as surely Pauline, there is all but a set theory. The main passage is Rom., iii, 23 sq.: “For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus, Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins.” Other texts, like Eph., ii, 16; Col., i, 20; and Gal., iii, 13, repeat and emphasize the same teaching. The early Fathers, engrossed as they were by the problems of Christology have added but little to the soteriology of the Gospel and St. Paul. It is not true, however, to say with Ritschl (” Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung”, Bonn, 1889), Harnack (“Precis de l’histoire des dogmes”, tr. Paris, 1893), Sabatier (“La doctrine de l’expiation et son evolution historique”, Paris, 1903) that they viewed Redemption only as the deification of humanity through incarnation and knew nothing of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction. “An impartial inquiry”, says Riviere, “clearly shows two tendencies: one idealistic, which views salvation more as the supernatural restoration of mankind to an immortal and Divine life, the other realistic, which considers it rather as the expiation of our sins through the death of Christ. The two tendencies run side by side with an occasional contact, but at no time did the former completely absorb the latter, and in course of time, the realistic view became preponderant” (Le dogme de la redemption, p. 209). St. Anselm’s famous treatise “Cur Deus homo” may be taken as the first systematic presentation of the doctrine of Redemption, and, apart from the exaggeration noted above, contains the synthesis which became dominant in Catholic theology. Far from being adverse to the satisfactio vicaria popularized by St. Anselm, the early Reformers accepted it without question and even went so far as to suppose that Christ endured the pains of hell in our place. If we except the erratic views of Abelard, Socinus (d. 1562) in his “de Deo servatore” was the first who attempted to replace the traditional dogma of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction by a sort of purely ethical exemplarism. He was and is still followed by the Rationalist School which sees in the traditional theory all but defined by the Church, a spirit of vindictiveness unworthy of God and a subversion of justice in substituting the innocent for the guilty. The charge of vindictiveness, a piece of gross anthropomorphism, comes from confounding the sin of revenge and the virtue of justice. The charge of injustice ignores the fact that Jesus, the juridical head of mankind (Ephesians 1:22), voluntarily offered Himself (John 10:15), that we might be saved by the grace of one Saviour even as we had been lost by the fault of the one Adam (Romans 5:15). It would be a crude conception indeed to suppose that the guilt or culpability of men passed from the consciences of men to the conscience of Christ: the penalty alone was voluntarily assumed by the Redeemer and, in paying it, He washed away our sins and restored us to our former supernatural state and destination.
B. Merits of Christ
Satisfaction is not the only object and value of Christ’s theandric operations and sufferings; for these, beside placating God, also benefit man in several ways. They possess, in the first place, the power of impetration or intercession which is proper to prayer, according to John, xi, 42: “And I knew that thou hearest me always.” However, as satisfaction is the main factor of Redemption with regard to God’s honour, so man’s restoration is due principally to the merits of Christ. That merit, or the quality which makes human acts worthy of a reward at the hands of another, attaches to the works of the Redeemer, is apparent from the easily ascertained presence in them of the usual conditions of merit, namely the wayfarer state (John 1:14); moral liberty (John 10:18); conformity to the ethical standard (John 8:29); and Divine promise (Isaiah 53:10). Christ merited for Himself, not indeed grace nor essential glory which were both attached and due to the Hypostatic Union, but accidental honour (Hebrews 2:9) and the exaltation of His name (Phil., ii, 9-10). He also merited for us. Such Biblical phrases as to receive “of his fulness” (John 1:16), to be blessed with His blessings (Ephesians 1:3), to be made alive in Him (1 Corinthians 15:22), to owe Him our eternal salvation (Hebrews 5:9) clearly imply a communication from Him to us and that at least by way of merit. The Council of Florence [Decretum pro Jacobitis, Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 711 (602)] credits man’s deliverance from the domination of Satan to the merit of the Mediator, and the Council of Trent (Sess. V, cc. iii, vii, xvi and canons iii, x) repeatedly connects the merits of Christ and the development of our supernatural life in its various phases. Canon iii of Session V says anathema to whoever claims that original sin is cancelled otherwise than by the merits of one Mediator, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and canon x of Session VI defines that man cannot merit without the justice through which Christ merited our justification.
The objects of Christ’s merits for us are the supernatural gifts lost by sin, that is, grace (John 1:14, l6) and salvation (1 Corinthians 15:22); the preternatural gifts enjoyed by our first parents in the state of innocence are not, at least in this world, restored by the merits of Redemption, as Christ wishes us to suffer with Him in order that we may be glorified with Him (Romans 8:17). St. Thomas explaining how Christ’s merits pass on to us, says: Christ merits for others as other men in the state of grace merit for themselves (III:48:1). With us merits are essentially personal. Not so with Christ who, being the head of our race (Ephesians 4:15-5:23), has, on that score, the unique prerogative of communicating to the subordinate personal members the Divine life whose source He is. “The same motion of the Holy Ghost”, says Schwalm, “which impels us individually through the various stages of grace toward life eternal, impels Christ but as the leader of all; and so the same law of efficacious Divine motion governs the individuality of our merits and the universality of Christ’s merits” (Le Christ, 422). It is true that the Redeemer associates others to Himself “For the perfecting of the saints, . . . for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12), but their subordinate merit is only a matter of fitness and creates no right, whereas Christ, on the sole ground of His dignity and mission can claim for us a participation in His Divine privileges.
All admit, in Christ’s meritorious actions, a moral influence moving God to confer on us the grace through which we merit. Is that influence merely moral or does it effectively concur in the production of grace? From such passages as Luke, vi 19, “virtue went out from him”, the Greek Fathers insist much on the dynamis zoopoios or vis vivifica, of the Sacred Humanity, and St. Thomas (III:48:6) speaks of a sort of efficientia whereby the actions and passions of Christ, as vehicle of the Divine power, cause grace by way of instrumental force. Those two modes of action do not exclude each other: the same act or set of acts of Christ may be and probably is endowed with twofold efficiency, meritorious on account of Christ’s personal dignity, dynamic on account of His investment with Divine power.
III. ADEQUACY OF REDEMPTION
Redemption is styled by the “Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1, v, 15) “complete, integral in all points, perfect and truly admirable”. Such is the teaching of St. Paul: “where sin abounded, grace did more abound” (Romans 5:20), that is, evil as the effects of sin are, they are more than compensated by the fruits of Redemption. Commenting on that passage St. Chrysostom (Hom. X in Rom., in P.G., LX, 477) compares our liability to a drop of water and Christ’s payment to the vast ocean. The true reason for the adequacy and even superabundance of Redemption is given by St. Cyril of Alexandria: “One died for all . . . but there was in that one more value than in all men together, more even than in the whole creation, for, beside being a perfect man, He remained the only son of God” (Quod unus sit Christus, in P. G., LXXV, 135fi). St. Anselm (Cur Deus homo, II, xviii) is probably the first writer who used the word “infinite,” in connection with the value of Redemption: “ut sufficere possit ad solvendum quod pro peccatis totius mundi debetur et plus in infinitum”. This way of speaking was strongly opposed by John Duns Scotus and his school on the double plea that the Humanity of Christ is finite and that the qualification of infinite would make all Christ’s actions equal and place each of them on the same level with His sublime surrender in the Garden and on Calvary. However the word and the idea passed into current theology and were even officially adopted by Clement VI (Extravag. Com. Unigenitus, V, IX, 2), the reason given by the latter, “propter unionem ad Verbum”, being the identical one adduced by the Fathers.
If It is true that; according to the axiom “actiones sunt suppositorum”, the value of actions is measured by the dignity of the person who performs them and whose expression and coefficient they are, then the theandric operations must be styled and are infinite because they proceed from an infinite person. Scotus’s theory wherein the infinite intrinsic worth of the theandric operations is replaced by the extrinsic acceptation of God, is not altogether proof against the charge of Nestorianism leveled at it by Catholics like Schwane and Rationalists like Harnack. His arguments proceed from a double confusion between the person and the nature, between the agent and the objective conditions of the act. The Sacred Humanity of Christ is, no doubt the immediate principle of Christ’s satisfactions and merits, but that principle (principium quo) being subordinate to the Person of the Word (principium quod), borrows from it the ultimate and fixed value, in the present case infinite, of the actions it performs. On the other hand, there is in Christ’s actions, as in our own, a double aspect, the personal and the objective: in the first aspect only are they uniform and equal while, viewed objectively, they must needs vary with the nature, circumstances, and finality of the act.
From the adequacy and even superabundance of Redemption as viewed in Christ our Head, it might be inferred that there is neither need nor use of personal effort on our part towards the performance of satisfactory works or the acquisition of merits. But the inference would be fallacious. The law of cooperation, which obtains all through the providential order, governs this matter particularly. It is only through, and in the measure of, our co-operation that we appropriate to ourselves the satisfactions and merits of Christ. When Luther, after denying human liberty on which all good works rest, was driven to the makeshift of “fiducial faith” as the sole means of appropriating the fruits of Redemption, he not only fell short of, but also ran counter to, the plain teaching of the New Testament calling upon us to deny ourselves and carry our cross (Matthew 16:24), to walk in the footsteps of the Crucified (1 Peter 2:21), to suffer with Christ in order to be glorified with Him (Rom. viii, 17), in a word to fill up those things that are wanting to the sufferings of Christ (Colossians 1:24). Far from detracting from the perfection of Redemption, our daily efforts toward the imitation of Christ are the test of its efficacy and the fruits of its fecundity. “All our glory”, says the Council of Trent, “is in Christ in whom we live, and merit, and satisfy, doing worthy fruits of penance which from Him derive their virtue, by Him are presented to the Father, and through Him find acceptance with God” (Sess. XIV, c. viii)
IV. UNIVERSALITY OF REDEMPTION
Whether the effects of Redemption reached out to the angelic world or to the earthly paradise is a disputed point among theologians. When the question is limited to fallen man it has a clear answer in such passages as I John, ii, 2; I Tim. ii, 4, iv, 10; II Cor., v, 16; etc., all bearing out the Redeemer’s intention to include in His saving work the universality of men without exception. Some apparently restrictive texts like Matt., xx, 28 xxvi, 28; Rom., v, 15; Heb., ix, 28, where the words “many” (Multi), “more” (plures), are used in reference to the extent of Redemption, should be interpreted in the sense of the Greek phrase no pollon, which means the generality of men, or by way of comparison, not between a portion of mankind included in, and another left out of, Redemption, but between Adam and Christ. In the determination of the many problems that arose from time to time in this difficult matter, the Church was guided by the principle laid down in the Synod of Quierzy [Denzinger-Bannwart n. 319 (282)] and the Council of Trent [Sess. VI, c. iii, Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 795 (677)] wherein a sharp line is drawn between the power of Redemption and its actual application in particular cases. The universal power has been maintained against the Predestinarians and Calvinists who limited Redemption to the predestinated (cf. the councils named above), and against the Jansenists who restricted it to the faithful or those who actually come to faith [prop. 4 and 5, condemned by Alexander VIII, in Denzinger-Bannwart, 1294-5 (1161-2)] and the latter’s contention that it is a Semi-Pelagian error to say that Christ died for all men has been declared heretical [Denzinger-Bannwart, n.1096 (970)].
The opinion of Vasquez and a few theologians, who placed children dying without baptism outside the pale of Redemption, is commonly rejected in Catholic schools. In such cases no tangible effects of Redemption can be shown, but this is no reason for pronouncing them outside the redeeming virtue of Christ. They are not excluded by any Biblical text. Vasquez appeals to I Tim., ii, 3-6, to the effect that those children, not having any means or even possibility to come to the knowledge of the truth, do not seem to be included in the saving will of God. If applied to infants at all, the text would exclude likewise those who, as a matter of fact, receive baptism. It is not likely that Redemption would seek adults laden with personal sins and omit infants labouring under original sin only. Far better say with St. Augustine: “Numquid parvuli homines non sunt, ut non pertineat ad eos quod dictum est: vult omnes salvos fieri?” (Contra Julianum, IV, xiii). With regard to the de facto application of Redemption in particular cases, it is subject to many conditions, the principal being human liberty and the general laws which govern the world both natural and supernatural. The Universalists’ contention that all should finally be saved lest Redemption be a failure is not only unsupported by, but also opposed to, the New Dispensation which far from suppressing the general laws of the natural order, places in the way of salvation many indispensable conditions or laws of a freely established supernatural order. Neither should we be moved by the reproaches of failure often flung at Redemption on the plea that, after nineteen centuries of Christianity, a comparatively small portion of mankind has heard the voice of the Good Shepherd (John 10:16) and a still smaller fraction has entered the true fold. It was not within God’s plan to illumine the world with the light of the Incarnate Word at once, since he waited thousands of years to send the Desired of the Nations. The laws of progress which obtain everywhere else govern also the Kingdom of God. We have no criterion whereby we can tell with certainty the success or failure of Redemption, and the mysterious influence of the Redeemer may reach farther than we think in the present as it certainly has a retroactive effect upon the past. There can be no other meaning to the very comprehensive terms of Revelation. The graces accorded by God to the countless generations preceding the Christian era, whether Jews or Pagans, were, by anticipation, the graces of Redemption. There is little sense in the trite dilemma that Redemption could benefit neither those who were already saved nor those who were forever lost, for the just of the Old Law owed their salvation to the anticipated merits of the coming Messias and the damned lost their souls because they spurned the graces of illumination and good will which God granted them in prevision of the saving works of the Redeemer.
V. TITLE AND OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER
Besides the names Jesus, Saviour, Redeemer, which directly express the work of Redemption, there are other titles commonly attributed to Christ because of certain functions or offices which are either implied in or connected with Redemption, the principal being Priest, Prophet, King and Judge.
Priest
The sacerdotal office of the Redeemer is thus described by Manning (The Eternal Priesthood, 1): What is the Priesthood of the Incarnate Son? It is the office He assumed for the Redemption of the world by the oblation of Himself in the vestment of our manhood. He is Altar, Victim and Priest by an eternal consecration of Himself. This is the priesthood forever after the order of Melchisedek who was without beginning of days or end of life—a type of the eternal priesthood of the son of God. As sacrifice, if not by the nature of things, at least by the positive ordinance of God, is part of Redemption, the Redeemer must be a priest, for it is the function of the priest to offer sacrifice. In an endeavour to induce the newly converted Jews to abandon the defective Aaronic priesthood and to cling to the Great High Priest who entered heaven, St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews, extols the dignity of Christ’s sacerdotal office. His consecration as a priest took place, not from all eternity and through the procession of the Word from the Father, as some of the theologians seem to imply, but in the fulness of time and through the Incarnation, the mysterious unction which made Him priest being none else than the Hypostatic Union. His great sacrificial act was performed on Calvary by the oblation of Himself on the Cross, is continued on earth by the Sacrifice of the Mass and consummated in heaven through the sacrificial intention of the priest and the glorified wounds of the victim. The Christian priesthood, to which is committed the dispensation of the mysteries of God, is not a substitute for, but the prolongation of, the priesthood of Christ: He continues to be the offerer and the oblation; all that the consecrated and consecrating priests do in their ministerial capacity, is to “show forth the death of the Lord” and apply the merits of His Sacrifice.
Prophet
The title of Prophet applied by Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15) to the coming Messias and recognized as a valid claim by those who heard Jesus (Luke 7:10), means not only the foretelling of future events, but also in a general way the mission of teaching men in the name of God. Christ was a Prophet in both senses. His prophecies concerning Himself, His disciples, His Church, and the Jewish nation, are treated in manuals of apologetics (see McIlvaine, “Evidences of Christianity”, lect. V-VI, Lescoeur, “Jésus-Christ”, 12e conféer.: Le Prophète). His teaching power (Matthew 7:29), a necessary attribute of His Divinity, was also an integrant part of Redemption. He who came “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10) should possess every quality, Divine and human, that goes to make the efficient teacher. What Isaias (Iv, 4) foretold, “Behold I have given him for a witness to the people, for a leader and a master to the Gentiles”, finds its full realization in the history of Christ. A perfect knowledge of the things of God and of man’s needs, Divine authority and human sympathy, precept and example combine to elicit from all generations the praise bestowed on Him by His hearers — “never did man speak like this man” (John 7:46).
King
The kingly title frequently bestowed on the Messias by the Old Testament writers (Ps. ii, 0; Is. ix, 6, etc.) and openly claimed by Jesus in Pilate’s Court (John 18:37) belongs to Him not only in virtue of the Hypostatic Union but also by way of conquest and as a result of Redemption (Luke 1:32). Whether or not the temporal dominion of the universe belonged to His royal power, it is certain that He understood His Kingdom to be of a higher order than the kingdoms of the world (John 18:36). The spiritual kingship of Christ is essentially characterized by its final object which is the supernatural welfare of men, its ways and means which are the Church and the sacraments, its members who are only such as, through grace, have acquired the title of adopted children of God. Supreme and universal, it is subordinate to no other and knows no limitations of either time or place. While the kingly functions of Christ are not always performed visibly as in earthly kingdoms, it would be wrong to think of His Kingdom as a merely ideal system of thought. Whether viewed in this world or in the next, the “Kingdom of God” is essentially hierarchic, its first and last stage, that is, its constitution in the Church and its consummation in the final judgment, being official and visible acts of the King.
Judge
The Judicial office so emphatically asserted in the New Testament (Matthew 25:31; 26:64; John 5:22 sq.; Acts 10:42) and early symbols [Denzinger-Bannwart, nn. 1-41 (1-13)] belongs to Christ in virtue of His Divinity and Hypostatic Union and also as a reward of Redemption. Seated at the right hand of God, in token not only of rest after the labours of His mortal life or of glory after the humiliations of His Passion or of happiness after the ordeal of Golgotha, but also of true judicial power (St. Augustine, “De fide et symbolo”, in P.L., XL, 188), He judges the living and the dead. His verdict inaugurated in each individual conscience will become final at the particular judgment and receive a solemn and definitive recognition at the assizes of the last judgment. (See ATONEMENT.)
———————————–
OXENHAM, The Atonement (London, 1881); RlVIERE, Le dogme de la Redemption (Paris 1905); HUGON, Le mystere de la Redemption (Paris, 1910); GRIMAL, Le sacerdoce et 1e sacrifice (Paris, 1911); HUNTER, Outlines of dogmatic theology (New York 1894); WILHELM AND SCANNELL, Manual of Catholic theology (London, ;901); TANQUERET, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae specialis (Rome, Tournai Paris, 1909); with a good bibliography II, 404, and passim; RITTER, Christus der Erloser (Linz, 1903); MUTH, Heilstadt Christi als stelloertretende Genugthuung (Ratisbon, 1904).
J.F. SOLLIER Transcribed by William O’Meara
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIICopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Redemption
in theology, denotes our recovery from sin and death by the obedience and sacrifice of Christ, who on this account is called the Redeemer (Isa 59:20; Job 19:25). Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:24). Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (Gal 3:13). In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace (Eph 1:7). Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with.the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot (1Pe 1:18-19). And ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price (1Co 6:19-20).
By redemption those who deny the atonement made by Christ wish to understand deliverance merely, regarding only the effect, and studiously putting out of sight the cause from which it flows. But the very terms used in the above-cited passages, to redeem and to be bought with a price, will each be found to refute this notion of a gratuitous deliverance, whether from sin or punishment, or both. Our English word redemption, says Dr. Gill, is from the Latin, and signifies buying again; and several words in the Greek language of the New Test. are used in the affair of our redemption which signify the obtaining of something by paying a proper price for it; sometimes the simple verb , to buy, is used; so the redeemed are said to be bought unto God by the blood of Christ, and to be bought from the earth, and to be bought from among men, and to be bought with a price that is, with the price of Christ’s blood (1Co 6:20); hence the Church of God is said to be purchased with it (Act 20:28). Sometimes the compound word is used, which signifies to buy again, or out of the hands of another, as the redeemed are bought out of the hands of justice, as in Gal 3:13; Gal 4:5. To redeem literally means to buy back;’ and , to redeem, and , redemption, are, both in Greek writers and in the New Test., used for the act of setting free a captive by paying , a ransom) or redemtion price. Yet, as Grotius has fully shown by reference to the use of the words both in sacred and profane writers, redempn tion signifies not merely the liberation of captives, but deliverance from exile, death, and every other evil fromi which we may be freed; and signifies everything which satisfies another so as to effect this deliverance. The nature of this redemption or purchased deliverance (for it is not gratuitous liberation, as will presently appear) is therefore to be ascertained by the circumstances of those who are the subjects of it. The subjects in the case before us are sinful men; they are under guilt, under the curse of the law, the servants of sin, under the power and dominion of the devil, and taken captive by him at his will, liable to the death of the body and to eternal punishment. To the whole of this case the redemption-the purchased deliverance of man as proclaimed in the Gospel applies itself. Hence in the above-cited and other passages it is said, We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in opposition to guilt; redemption from the curse of the law; deliverance from sin, that we should be set free from sin; deliverance from the power of Satan; from death, by a resurrection; and from future wrath bv the gift of eternal life. Throughout the whole of this glorious doctrine of our redemption from these tremendous evils there is, however, in the New Test., a constant reference to the , the redemption price, which is as constantly declared to be the death of Christ, which he endured in our stead. The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many (Mat 20:28). Who gave himself a ransom for all (1Ti 2:6). In whom we have redemption through his blood (Eph 1:7). Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ (1Pe 1:18-19). That deliverance of man from sin, misery, and all other penal evils of his transgression, which constitutes our redemption by Christ, is not, therefore, a gratuitous deliverance, granted without a consideration, as an act of mere prerogative; the ransom the redemption price was exacted and paid; one thing was given for another the precious blood of Christ for captive and condemned men. Of the same import are those passages which represent us as having been bought or purchased by Christ. Peter speaks of those who denied the Lord , that bought them; and Paul, in the passage above cited, says, Ye are bought with a price (), which price is expressly said by John to be the blood of Christ: Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God (, hast purchased us) by thy blood’ (Rev 5:9). The ends of redemption are, that the justice of God might be satisfied; his people reconciled, adopted, sanctified, and brought to glory. The properties of it are these:
(1) it is agreeable to all the perfections of God;
(2) what a creature never could merit, and therefore entirely of free grace;
(3) it is special and particular;
(4) full and complete;
(5) it is eternal as to its blessings. See Edwards, Hist. of Redemption; Cole, On the Sovereignty of God; Lime-street Lect. lect. 5; Watts, Ruin and Recovery; Owen, On the Death and Satisfaction of Christ; Gill, Body of Divinity; Pressensd, Religion; Goodwin, Works; Knapp, Theology, p. 331; Bullet. Theol. Avril, 1868; Calvin, Institutes; Evangel. Quar. Rev. April, 1870, p. 290; Presbyt. Confess.; Werner, Gesch. der deutschen Theol.; Meth. Quar. Rev. Oct. 1868; July, 1874, p. 500; Jan. 1876, art. ii; Presbyt. Quar. Rev. July, 1875, art. ii; Fletcher, Works; New-Englander, July, 1870, p. 531; Barnes [Albert], The Atonement in its Relations to Law and Moral Government (Phila. 1858, 12mo); Princeton Rev. July, 1859; Oct. 1859; Bibl. Sacra, Jan. 1858; Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. p. 482; Muller, On Sin; Pearson, On the Creed; Liddon, Divinity of Christ; Pin, Jesus-Christ dans le Plan Divin lde la Redemtption (1873). SEE PROPITIATION; SEE RECONCILIATION; SEE SATISFACTION
.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Redemption
the purchase back of something that had been lost, by the payment of a ransom. The Greek word so rendered is _apolutrosis_, a word occurring nine times in Scripture, and always with the idea of a ransom or price paid, i.e., redemption by a lutron (See Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). There are instances in the LXX. Version of the Old Testament of the use of _lutron_ in man’s relation to man (Lev. 19:20; 25:51; Ex. 21:30; Num. 35:31, 32; Isa. 45:13; Prov. 6:35), and in the same sense of man’s relation to God (Num. 3:49; 18:15).
There are many passages in the New Testament which represent Christ’s sufferings under the idea of a ransom or price, and the result thereby secured is a purchase or redemption (comp. Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; Gal. 3:13; 4:4, 5; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; 1 Tim. 2:5, 6; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; Rev. 5:9). The idea running through all these texts, however various their reference, is that of payment made for our redemption. The debt against us is not viewed as simply cancelled, but is fully paid. Christ’s blood or life, which he surrendered for them, is the “ransom” by which the deliverance of his people from the servitude of sin and from its penal consequences is secured. It is the plain doctrine of Scripture that “Christ saves us neither by the mere exercise of power, nor by his doctrine, nor by his example, nor by the moral influence which he exerted, nor by any subjective influence on his people, whether natural or mystical, but as a satisfaction to divine justice, as an expiation for sin, and as a ransom from the curse and authority of the law, thus reconciling us to God by making it consistent with his perfection to exercise mercy toward sinners” (Hodge’s Systematic Theology).
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Redemption
Whatever theory one may hold as to the possibility or a priori probability of a Divine intervention in human affairs, the Bible is pledged to the fact that such an intervention has taken place. A study of its pages leads to the conclusion that it is as much in accordance with God’s nature to help men out of the difficulties in which sin has involved them, as it was to create them after his own likeness in the first instance. nor will the student of the physical world fail to observe the analogy which here exists between nature and revelation; for if there be a v is medicatrix or healing power which is called into play by the wounds, accidents, and diseases to which the body is subject, why should it be thought a thing incredible that the Father of our spirits should provide some means of restoration for those who have become a prey to evil passions, and who through temptation or self-will have become partakers of moral and material corruption?
The patriarchal and Mosaic economies appear to have been intended by the Divine Being to form a groundwork whereup on a restorative work for the benefit of the human race might be built up in the fulness of time; and the pious Jew was trained up in the belief that amidst all his sins and ignorances, his infirmities and misfortunes, he might look up to God and receive from Him those blessings which are summed up in the words redemption and salvation.
The word which specially indicates redemption is Gaal (), best known in the form Goel, redeemer. [Another word, almost the same in sound, sometimes spelt in the same way, and sometimes with a slight change (), signifies to defile or pollute.] Perhaps the original meaning of the word is to ‘dem and back,’ hence to extricate. It first appear in Gen 48:16, ‘The angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads.’ in Exo 6:6; Exo 15:13, it is used of God’s redeeming Israel out of Egypt with a stretched-out arm. We meet with it no more till we reach the twenty-fifth and twenty-seventh chapters of Leviticus, where it signifies the liberation of property from a charge, whether that charge was an ordinary debt or whether it had been incurred through a vow. The deliverance was to be effected in this case by payment or by exchange in cases of poverty, where no payment was possible, the nearest of k in was made responsible for performing the work of redemption. Hence no doubt it came to pass that a kinsman came to be called by the name Goel, as he is in Num 5:8, 1Ki 16:11, and throughout the Book of Ruth. Compare Jer 32:7-8.
In the prophets the word is applied not only to the deliverance of God’s people from captivity, but to that more important and complete deliverance, of which all other historical interpositions of Divine grace are shadows. See Isa 35:9; Isa 41:14; Isa 43:1; Isa 43:14; Isa 44:6; Isa 44:22-24; Isa 47:4; Isa 48:17; Isa 49:7; Isa 49:26; Isa 51:10; Isa 52:3; Isa 62:12; Isa 63:4, Jer 31:11.
One of the most important passages where the word occurs is in Isa 59:20, ‘The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob’–words to which St. Paul refers as destined to have their fulfilment hereafter at the time of the complete salvation of Israel as a nation (Rom 11:26). [The text in Romans runs thus: ‘The Redeemer shall come from Zion, and shall turn away transgressions from Jacob.’ The LXX agrees in the latter part, but in the first part a different Hebrew reading must have been followed by St. Paul.]
The word occurs once in Job, in the celebrated passage (Job 19:25), ‘I know that my Redeemer liveth.’ Whatever view may be taken of this passage, whether we regard it as a prediction of the Messiah’s coming, or as an intimation of the doctrine of the resurrection, or as referring to a temporal deliverance from disease and trouble, one point is clear, that Job expresses his deep conviction that there was a living God who could and who would take his part, and extricate him from all difficulties; and this is the principle in which the Hebrew reader was to be trained.
In Psa 19:14, the Psalmist calls God his strength and his Redeemer; and in Psa 69:18, he appeals to God to draw nigh and redeem his soul; and he uses the word again in a personal rather than a national sense, with reference to past or future deliverances, in Psa 77:15; Psa 78:35; Psa 103:4; Psa 106:10; Psa 107:2 in Psa 119:154, Gaal is rendered deliver.
Another application of the word was in the sense of avenging the blood of the slain. this is treated at length in the thirty-fifth chapter of Numbers, in connection with the subject of the cities of refuge. It is also referred to in Deu 19:6; Deu 19:12; Jos 20:3; Jos 20:5; Jos 20:9; and 2Sa 14:11.
A remarkable combination of the senses of Goel is to be found in Pro 23:10-11, ‘Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless: for their redeemer is mighty; he shall plead their cause with thee.’ God takes the place of kinsman and also of avenger to the po or and helpless.
The idea of Goel as the avenger of blood comes up again in Isa 63:4, when the Mighty One in bloodstained garments says, ‘The day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come.’ The word occurs again in the ninth and sixteenth verses of the same chapter, where it rather signifies deliverance from captivity.
In most of the passages above enumerated redemption may be considered as synonymous with deliverance, but always with the idea more or less developed that the Redeemer enters into a certain relationship with the redeemed–allies Himself in some sense with them, and so claims the right of redemption. The truth thus set forth was doubtless intended to prepare the mind of God’s people for the doctrine of the Incarnation. ‘Forasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, therefore he also took part in the same,’ and having constituted Himself the kinsman of the human race, He fought their battle against ‘him who had the power of death,’ and delivered his people from bondage (see Heb 2:14-15).
The LXX generally renders Gaal by , to redeem; but in fourteen passages we find , to deliver; and in ten, , to act the neighbour. The verb is found in Zep 3:1 (A. V. ‘polluted’); in Lev 25:24; Lev 25:51; Lev 25:54 ; in Lev 25:31-32; Psa 18:15; Psa. 77:35.
In many of the passages above cited another word is used as a parallel to gaal, namely, padah (; Ass. pad, ‘to spare’), which our translators have rendered by the words deliver, redeem, ransom, [The English word ransom is only a contracted form of the word redemption.] and rescue. It is used in Exo 13:13; Exo 13:15, of the redemption of the first-born, who were regarded as representatives of those who had been spared when the first-born of Egypt were destroyed. this redemption extended to all unclean beasts, to all, that is to say, that were precluded from being offered as sacrifice (Num 18:16-17), and a set price was to be paid for their deliverance or quittance. Redemption money (A. V. ransom) is described in Exo 21:30 as paid to make amends (copher) in certain eases of wrong-doing (see R. V.).
Padah is often adopted to represent the deliverance of a servant from slavery, as in Exo 21:8. It is also used of the people rescuing Jonathan from death, in 1Sa 14:45.
This word is used in Psa 31:5, ‘Into thine h and I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth;’ Psa 34:22, ‘The Lord redeemeth the souls of his servants;’ Psa 49:7-8; Psa 49:15, ‘None can redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom (copher) for him: (for the redemption of their soul is precious). . But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave;’ Psa 130:7-8, ‘With the Lord is plenteous redemption; and he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities;’ Isa 1:27, ‘Zion shall be redeemed with judgment.’ The application of the word to Abraham, in Isa 29:22, is remarkable, ‘Thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham.’ It seems here to signify his call from the companionship of idolaters and his introduction into the covenant of promise.
From the passages which have now been cited, it will be gathered that the word Padah is not used in the peculiar technical senses which Gaal expresses, but that it especially refers to the deliverance from bondage. The LXX generally represents it by ; five times we find , twice , and once .
The cognate form pada () is found in connection with Caphar in Job 33:24, ‘Deliver him: I have found a ransom’ (or mode of atonement); but we find Padah in verse 28, ‘He will deliver his soul from going into the pit.’
NT Teaching on Redemption
In approaching the Greek words for redemption in the N.T., it is evident that we must not narrow our conceptions to one sole process of deliverance, for the O.T. has led us to look for redemption in many aspects. There may be physical deliverance, from disease or death; social deliverance, from conventional or legal barriers between man and man, between the sexes, between various classes of society or various nations of the world; and there may be moral and spiritual deliverance, from the power of evil in the heart, and from the effects of that evil before God. Without pressing for a strong demarcation between , to deliver, and , to redeem, we shall be prepared to find in both cases that the deliverance of man is costly, involving some gift or act of self-sacrifice on the part of the Redeemer; nor shall we be surprised if we find that a certain identification is necessitated between the Deliverer and those whom He claims a right to deliver.
We find in the sense of deliverance in the following passages [But it is to be remembered that whilst occasionally stands for Gaal and padah, it more generally represents the causative form of natzal (), to rescue.] :–Mat 6:13, ‘Deliver us from evil.’ Luk 1:74, ‘That we being delivered out of the hands of our enemies might serve him without fear;’ connected with the coming of Christ. Rom 7:24, ‘O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?’ but here note the answer, ‘through Jesus Christ.’ Rom 11:26, referring to Isa 59:20, ‘The Redeemer (Goel, ) shall come from Zion.’ See note on this passage on p.118. Rom 15:31, ‘That I may be delivered from them that are disobedient.’ 2Co 1:10, ‘Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver; and we hope also that he shall deliver.’ Col 1:13, ‘Who delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us.’ 1Th 1:10, ‘Who delivers us from the wrath to come.’ See also 2Th 3:2; 2Ti 3:11; 2Ti 4:17-18; 2Pe 2:7; 2Pe 2:9.
The verb is used only three times in the N.T in two of these passages there is evidently a reference to the cost or sacrifice which man’s delivery has involved in Tit 2:14 we are told of Jesus Christ that He ‘gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity.’ in 1Pe 1:18-19, ‘Ye were not redeemed from your vain manner of life with corruptible things, as silver and gold; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.’ These passages may be compared with our Lord’s own words which are found in Mat 20:28, and Mar 10:45, ‘The son of man came (i.e. identified himself with the human race), not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many,’ . Thus the Lord became the kinsman of men, so as to have the right of redeeming them by the sacrifice of his own life. this truth was set forth in most striking words by St. Paul, who says of the Saviour (1Ti 2:5-6), ‘There is one mediat or for God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all ( ), to be testified in due time.’
Again, the two disciples, on their road to Emmaus, said of Jesus (Luk 24:21), ‘We trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel,’ . by this expression they implied that a Redeemer was certainly coming, and that their hopes had been set up on Jesus of Nazaret has the person they were looking for. by the redemption of Israel perhaps they meant what the disciples described a few days afterwards as the restoration of the kingdom to Israel this redemption had been looked for with much eagerness among the Jews of that time, possibly owing to the study of Daniel’s prophecy of Seventy Weeks. We have a glimpse of this expectation thirty years earlier in the prophetic song of Zacharias, which opens with these words (Luk 1:68): ‘Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed ( ) his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David.’ The word redemption here used by the aged priest appears to gather up in one all the blessings mentioned in the later portions of the song –light, pardon, peace, salvation, deliverance from the h and of enemies, and the power of serving God without fear, ‘ in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life.’ Compare the words concerning the aged Anna (i.e. Hannah 5 [It is a pity that our Revisers did not correct the spelling of this name as they did in the case of ‘alleluia.’]) who went forth to speak of Him to all those that looked for redemption () in Jerusalem (Luk 2:38).
The word occurs once more, namely, in Heb 9:12, where we read of Christ that ‘ by his own blood he entered in once for all into the holy place (i.e into the heavens), having obtained (or found) eternal redemption for us (Job 33:24).’
The noun , which does not exist in the LXX, occurs ten times in the N.T.; once in the Gospels, ‘Lift up your heads, for behold your redemption draweth nigh’ (Luk 21:28). this passage evidently refers to a great future event, which shall constitute the final deliverance of Israel from desolation. The word is used with reference to a greater deliverance in Rom 8:23, ‘Waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body;’ also in Eph 1:13-14; Eph 4:30.
In Rom 3:24, Eph 1:7, and Col 1:14, redemption is apparently identified with present pardon and justification through the blood of Christ. But there is another passage which combines the present and future aspects of redemption in one, viz. Heb 9:15. It is here stated that the death of Christ effects a redemption, or perhaps we might render it a quittance or discharge of the account of the transgressions incurred under the first covenant, that they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance in Heb 11:35, the word is used with reference to that deliverance from death which the martyrs under the old dispensation might possibly have obtained at the cost of a denial of the faith.
The idea of purchase as connected with salvation is expressed still more strongly in the N.T. than in the O.T., by the use of the words and . The former of these is used several times in the Gospels in its ordinary sense; but in the later books we read, ‘Ye are (or were) bought with a price’ (1Co 6:20; 1Co 7:23); ‘Denying the Lord that bought them’ (2Pe 2:1); ‘Thou hast bought us for God by thy blood’ (Rev 5:9); ‘The hundred and forty-four thous and that are bought from the earth’ (Rev 14:3-4).
The more complete form is found in Gal 3:13, ‘Christ has bought us off from the curse;’ and Gal 4:5, ‘Made under the law, that he might buy off them that are under the law.’ It primarily refers to the special deliverance which Jews as such needed and obtained through the form and mode of Christ’s death, so as to extricate them from the claims which the law of Moses would otherwise have established against them.
Another word is rendered purchase in the N.T., namely, . The verb usually answers to the Hebrew Chayah (), to make or keep alive. It is also used in Isa 43:21, where we read, ‘This people have I formed (or moulded) for myself;’ and the noun occurs in Mal 3:17, where it signifies a peculiar treasure (A. V. jewels). The result of our being saved alive by God is that we become in a special sense his acquired property. Thus we may render Act 20:28, ‘Feed the church of God which he hath acquired to himself by his own blood;’ 1Pe 2:9, ‘An acquired people;’ [Thus a peculiar people, in the Bible, does not mean an eccentric or a strange people; it gives no excuse to people to affect peculiarities.] Eph 1:14, ‘Until the redemption of the acquired property;’ 1Th 5:9, ‘ for the acquisition of salvation;’ 2Th 2:14, ‘ for the acquisition of glory.’
Fuente: Synonyms of the Old Testament
REDEMPTION
In Bible days a slave could be set free from bondage by the payment of a price, often called the ransom. The whole affair was known as the redemption of the slave (Lev 25:47-48). (The words redeem and ransom are related to the same root in the original languages.) The Bible speaks of redemption both literally (concerning everyday affairs) and pictorially (concerning what God has done for his people) (Psa 77:15; Tit 2:14).
In the Old Testament
Under Israelite law, both people and things could be redeemed. In family matters, all Israelites had to redeem their firstborn. Since God had preserved Israels firstborn during the Passover judgment, they rightly belonged to him. Therefore, the parents had to redeem their firstborn by a payment of money to the sanctuary (Exo 13:2; Exo 13:13; Num 18:15-16; see FIRSTBORN). In matters of property, if people became poor and sold land they had inherited from ancestors, either they or close relatives had to buy the land back (redeem it) as soon as possible (Lev 25:25; Rth 4:3-6; see SABBATICAL YEAR).
If Israelites vowed to give God their children, animals, houses or land, they could redeem those things, again by a payment of money to the sanctuary (Lev 27:1-25; see VOWS). If a farmer was under the death sentence because his ox had killed someone, his relatives could redeem him (since the death was accidental) by a payment of money to the dead persons relatives (Exo 21:28-30). In all these cases there was the idea of release by the payment of a price.
Often God is said to have redeemed Israel; that is, to have delivered Israel from the power of its enemies (Jer 31:11; Mic 4:10). The greatest of these acts of redemption was at the time of the exodus, when God delivered Israel from captivity in Egypt (Exo 6:6; Exo 15:13; Psa 106:9-10; see EXODUS). Centuries later, after Israel (Judah) had been taken captive to Babylon, there was a second exodus, when God again redeemed his people from bondage (Isa 44:22-23; Isa 48:20).
In these acts of redemption of Israel there is no suggestion that God paid anything to the enemy nations, as if he was under some obligation to them. Nevertheless, there is the suggestion that redemption cost God something; for he had to use his mighty power in acts of judgment to save his people (Exo 32:11; Deu 4:37-38; Deu 9:26; Deu 9:29; Isa 45:13; Isa 52:3; Isa 63:9).
In the New Testament
Besides being an everyday practice, redemption was a fitting picture of Gods activity in saving sinners. Those who sin are slaves of sin and under the sentence of death, and have no way of releasing themselves from bondage (Joh 8:34; Rom 6:17; Rom 6:23; 1Jn 5:19; cf. Psa 130:8). Jesus Christ came to give his life as a ransom for those under this sentence of death. His death brought forgiveness of sins and so released them from sins bondage (Mat 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Gal 3:13; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; 1Ti 2:6; Rev 1:5).
Sinners are therefore redeemed by the blood of Christ. The ransom price he paid for them was his life laid down in sacrifice (Heb 9:12; 1Pe 1:18-19; Rev 5:9). They are freed from the power of sin in their lives now (Heb 2:14-15), and will experience the fulness of their redemption when their bodies also are freed from the power of sin at Christs return. That event will bring about not only the final redemption for humankind but also the release of the world of nature from sins corrupting power (Luk 21:28; Rom 8:21-23; Eph 4:30).
Paul at times makes a slightly different use of the illustration of slavery and redemption to remind Christians of their present responsibilities. When people are redeemed from the bondage of sin and the curse of the law, they come into a new life of liberty as the sons of God. Sin no longer has power over them, and they must show this to be true by the way they live (Rom 8:2; Gal 3:13-14; Gal 4:4-7; cf. Tit 2:14).
Yet, though free from sin, Christians are not free to do as they like. Because they have been bought with a price, they are now, in a sense, slaves of God. They must therefore be obedient to him, their new master (Rom 6:16-18; 1Co 6:19-20; 1Co 7:22-23; see SERVANT; SLAVE).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Redemption
REDEMPTION.An Apostle writes of Christin whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses (Eph 1:7). It is proposed in this article to inquire what redemption in Christ means, how Christs redemption is effected, and what blessings are included in it.
i. The Biblical doctrine
1. The vocabulary.In the OT the idea of redemption is distinctively expressed by the two verbs and , with their derivatives. The former term is used technically, in the Mosaic law, of the redemption by price of an inheritance (by a kinsman or the man himself, Lev 25:25 ff., Rth 4:4-7, Jer 32:7-8), or of things vowed (Lev 27:14 ff.), or of tithes (Lev 27:31 ff.): the latter of redeeming the firstborn of animals or of children (Exo 13:13; Exo 13:15; Exo 34:20, Num 18:15 ff.). Outside the Law, and in relation to Jehovah, both terms are used of simple salvation or deliverance, especially when attended by impressive displays of power, or the assertion or vindication of righteousness, or vengeance upon enemies. appears in this sense in Gen 48:16, Exo 6:6; Exo 15:13; repeatedly in the Psalms (Psa 69:18; Psa 72:14; Psa 74:2; Psa 103:4; Psa 106:10; Psa 107:2) and in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 43:1; Isa 44:22-23; Isa 48:20 etc.), and occasionally in other prophets. , on the other hand, is the favourite term in Deut. (Deu 7:8; Deu 9:26 etc.), is frequent in the earlier Psalms (Psa 25:22; Psa 31:5 etc.), but occurs only rarely in Isaiah (Isa 1:27; Isa 29:22; Isa 51:11). The person who has the right to redeem, or who undertakes the duty, is a , or redeemer (Num 5:8, Rth 2:20 etc. Authorized and Revised Versions kinsman); the term is used also to denote the avenger of blood (Num 35:12, Deu 19:6 etc.); and elsewhere, as in the famous passage Job 19:25, in Psa 19:14; Psa 78:35, and Pro 23:11, but specially in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 41:14; Isa 43:14 etc.), is applied to Jehovah as the all-powerful, holy, and merciful vindicator, deliverer, and avenger of His people. A term related in idea to redemption is ransom. (See Ransom).
In the NT the terms by which the idea is directly expressed are , to buy or purchase (1Co 6:20; 1Co 7:23, 2Pe 2:1, Rev 5:9; Rev 14:3-4the last translation in Authorized Version , redeem), and its compound , used by St. Paul in Gal 3:13; Gal 4:5; but specially (from , a ransom), and its derivatives (Luk 24:21, Tit 2:14, 1Pe 1:18). The special Pauline word for redemption is (Rom 3:24; Rom 8:23, 1Co 1:30, Eph 1:7 etc.,found also in Luk 21:28, Heb 9:15). The simple form occurs in Luk 2:38, Heb 9:12. The meaning of these expressions is more precisely considered below.
2. The OT preparation.The foundations of the NT doctrine of redemption are laid in the OT conceptions of the holiness, righteousness, and grace of Jehovah, and of sin as something abhorrent to Jehovahs holiness, which He must needs condemn and punish, but from which He desires to save. He is the Holy One, who abhors iniquity. Sinners shall not stand in His sight. He visits with severest penalties those who disregard His counsels and persist in their wickedness. Yet He is the Lord God, merciful and gracious, full of compassion and ready to forgive (Exo 34:6-7, Psa 103:8 ff.); He desires not the death of any sinner, but that he should turn from his wickedness and live (Eze 18:32; Eze 33:12). More specially, He is the covenant-keeping God, who does not allow His promises to fail, but, even when the nation in the mass is rejected, fulfils His word in due season to the faithful remnant, or to the whole people when brought to repentance (Psa 103:8-9, Isa 8:16-17, Jer 32:37 ff., Hos 1:10-11; Hos 2:14 ff. etc.). In this it is already implied that Jehovah will manifest His power, righteousness, and love in helping and saving His people, in vindicating their cause when oppressed, in visiting their adversaries with judgments, and in working out great and astonishing deliverances for them when the hour comes for the fulfilment of His promises. It follows that His relation to them, and His concern for their good, will be seen in the course of their history in a succession of acts of redemption.
It has been seen, accordingly, that while, in their legal usage, the OT terms for redeem and redemption imply payment of a price, or, in the case of the firstborn, substitution of a life, or a monetary ransom, these terms are often used in the more general sense of simple deliverance or salvation. The great historic instance of Jehovahs redemption of His people was their deliverance from the bondage of Egypt (Exo 6:6; Exo 15:13, Deu 7:8 etc.). That held in it already the pledge of every other deliverance which the nation or godly individuals in it might need. Prayers, therefore, are frequent that Jehovah would redeem from oppression, from violence, from sickness, from death, from captivity, etc. (e.g. Psa 25:22; Psa 49:15; Psa 72:14; Psa 103:4), and thanksgivings for deliverance refer usually to the same things (e.g. Psalms 116, 124, 126, Zec 10:8 ff.). Redemption in such passages is commonly from temporal calamities or ills, endured or feared. Only in one place is direct mention made of redemption from iniquities (Psa 130:8). This last fact, however, must not mislead us. As, in the OT, outward calamities are usually connected with Jehovahs anger, or with the hiding of His face, so, it is everywhere implied, the first condition of the removal of these evils is return to God and the forsaking of iniquity; if the individual is righteous, this is the ground on which he looks to God for vindication against the ungodly oppressor (Psalms 3, 4, 5 etc.). We must beware here, and throughout this whole discussion, of building too much on the mere occurrence of a term. The fact of redemption is often present, where the word is not directly used. Behind all interpositions for deliverance and help, whatever the words employed, stand Jehovahs unchanging character, His pledged word, His inflexible will to uphold the right, His compassion for the afflicted and oppressed. Righteousness, in His deliverances, always counts for more than the deliverance itself, which is conditioned by His unerring knowledge of the moral state. Where sin has been the cause of judgments on the individual or nation, redemption includes, in the removal of these evils, forgiveness and restoration to the Divine favour and to righteousness (cf. Psalms 85, Isa 1:16 ff., Hosea 14, etc.).
The Deliverer of His people in the OT is Jehovah Himself. Hence the affection with which Deutero-Isaiah dwells on the idea of Jehovah as the , or Redeemer of Israel. It is noteworthy, however, that in two passages redemption is attributed to the angel of Jehovahthat mysterious personality, one with Jehovah, yet again distinct from Him, who figures so prominently, particularly in the earlier stages of revelation. The angel which hath redeemed me from all evil, says Jacob, in the earliest instance of the use of the word , in Gen 48:16; and again in Isa 63:9 we have, with the use of the same word, the like idea: In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them, etc. That is, Jehovahs interposition in redemption is by means of His angel (cf. Psa 34:7). There is a fore-gleam here of what comes more clearly to light in the NT.
It may appear a point of contrast between the OT and the NT conceptions of redemption, that in the OT the word is never brought directly into association with sacrifice, or the ritual of atonement. The use of redeem in connexion with the firstborn (the substitution, e.g., of a lamb for the firstling of an ass) does not affect this statement, for these substitutions have not the character of atonement for sin. Here again, however, it is important to keep in memory the distinction between words and things. Apart from the use of terms, it is the case that the sacrificial ritualso far as expiatorywas, in its own way, a means of deliverance from guilt, and, in that sense, of redemption. A direct connexion between the sacrifices of the Law and the forgiveness of sin is expressly affirmed (e.g. Lev 4:20; Lev 4:26; Lev 4:35; cf. Isa 6:7); a fact irrespective of any theory of efficacy. Even in regard to words, there is the important point of connexion in the word ransom. (See Ransom).
But there is a yet closer link. There can be no question that a peculiar line of preparation for the NT doctrine lay in the development by Psalmists and Prophets of the idea of the Righteous Sufferer. The culmination of that development is reached in the matchless representation of Isaiah 53, where the Servant of Jehovah is pictured as making expiation by His sufferings and death for the sins of the people. Here at length Prophetic and sacrificial teaching touch, for the language and whole idea of the sacrificial ritual are taken over upon the Suffering Servant. The iniquity of His fellows is laid upon One who is without sin; His soul is made a guilt-offering; He bears the iniquities of the people; He pours out His soul unto death; He bears the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors (Isa 53:6; Isa 53:10-12). The later Prophetic teaching is not without refrains of the same ideas (Zechariah 13, Dan 9:24 ff.). Malachi brings to a close the long preparation of the OT with his prediction of the Angel of the Covenant soon to come to His temple, whose work would be at once judging and saving (Mal 3:4).
3. Redemption in the Gospels.With respect to the sources, it is acknowledged that a distinction is to be made between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. The last, however, is accepted in the present article as a genuine work of the Apostle John, embodying, if with a certain colouring from his own personality and interpretative comment, that Apostles reminiscences of the sayings and doings of Jesus, especially those of the Judaean ministry. Comparison will show that, fundamentally, the teachings of the four Gospels on our immediate subject coincide.
St. Lukes Gospel begins by introducing us to the circle of those who were looking for the redemption () of Jerusalem (Luk 2:38), or, as an earlier verse has it, were looking for the consolation of Israel (Luk 2:25). Of these there were not a few. Zacharias and Elisabeth, Simeon and the prophetess Anna, were among the number. From the hymn of Zacharias in Luk 1:68 ff. we see how far the idea of redemption was from being confined to temporal deliverance from enemies. Such deliverance was only a means towards serving the God who had redeemed His people in holiness and righteousness (Luk 1:75). Redemption included the knowledge of (spiritual) salvation by the remission of sins (Luk 1:77). This salvation was to be brought in by one from the house of David, in fulfilment of the promises made to the fathers (Luk 1:69-73). John the Baptist was to prepare the way for the Redeemers coming (Luk 1:76, cf. Luk 3:3 ff.). We are here, in short, on the threshold of the introduction of the Messianic salvation. In three of the Gospels, accordingly, we have preparatory notes struck, which show in what sense we are to understand this wonderful redemption of the Christ. The shepherds in Lk. are apprised of the birth in the city of David of a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord (Luk 2:11). In Mt. the child is called Jesus, for it is he that shall save his people from their sins (Luk 1:21). In St. Johns Gospel the Baptist points out Jesus to his disciples as the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world (Luk 1:29; Luk 1:36). All the Gospels give prominence to the Baptism of Jesus, with its consecration of Himself to fulfil all righteousness (in Mt.), its acknowledgment of Him as the Son of God, and the descent upon Him of the Holy Spirit (Mat 3:13-17, Mar 1:9-11, Luk 3:21-22, Joh 1:31-34); and the Synoptics relate His Temptation, in which false ideals of Messiahship were rejected, and His true vocation was definitely grasped and chosen (Mat 4:1-11 ||).
The important question now arises, How did Jesus Himself conceive of the work of redemption which belonged to Him as Messiah? The word itself is only once attributed to Him, and that in an eschatological connexion (Luk 21:28); it affords us, therefore, little help. His conception must be sought in a less direct way, by consideration of the aspects in which His saving activity is presented in the Gospels, and of the sayings and doings in which He connects the salvation of men with Himself. An error to be sedulously guarded against here is that of fastening on one or two isolated sayings of Jesus, for instance, on the passages about His death, and giving these an interpretation as if they were without any context in Jesus own thought, or in His general Messianic claim, or in earlier Prophetic revelation, or in the events which succeeded them, and threw light on them. A broader method must be followed if Christs idea of redemption is to be satisfactorily grasped.
It must impress us, then, that, in the idea of redemption, or what corresponds to it, in the Gospels, the spiritual elements are prominent as they were not in the OT. This was to be expected from the spiritual nature of the teaching of Jesus, and from the larger place given to the hope of the future life. The political aspect of redemption disappears altogether. The Kingdom Jesus came to found was not of this world (cf. Mat 18:1-5; Mat 19:27-30; Mat 20:25-28; Mat 26:51-53, Luk 17:21, Joh 6:15; Joh 18:36 etc.). Salvation from bodily ills, indeed, appears as an important part of Christs ministry, as in the healing of disease, the casting out of demons, the raising of the dead, the feeding of the multitudes (Mat 4:23-24; Mat 11:4-5 etc.). In these works of mercy Jesus revealed Himself as the Saviour of the body as well as of the soul. But the physical benefit was never an end in itself; it pointed up to, and prepared the way for the reception of, the spiritual blessing (Mat 9:2-8, Joh 6:26 ff.). It was conditioned by faith (Mat 8:10; Mat 9:2; Mat 9:22; Mat 9:28 etc.). The real evils from which Jesus came to redeem were spiritual evils; the priceless good He came to bestow was a spiritual good. Spiritual evil had its root and origin in sin; salvation takes its spring in the grace and mercy of God, and begins with forgiveness.
(1) We have first, then, to look at sin and its consequences as the evil to be redeemed from. The teaching of Jesus on the love and mercy of the Father should not blind us to the depth of His realization of the awful evil of sin, of the wrath of God against it, and of the peril of eternal death which overhung the sinner. Rather, in His view, is the Fathers mercy to be measured by the depth of the sinners lostness, the heinousness of his state in the light of the Divine holiness, and his inability to deliver himself from that state or its consequences. The sternness of Christs teaching in this relation is sometimes very terrible. As the Baptist warned his hearers to flee from the wrath to come, so Jesus has ever in the background of His most gracious teaching the thought of an awful Divine judgment, which surely one day will descend on the impenitent. He does not hesitate to speak of the fire of Gehenna (Mat 5:22; Mat 5:29-30, and of God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna (Mat 10:28); of the worm that dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched (Mar 9:44; Mar 9:46; Mar 9:48); of the judgment, less tolerable than that upon Tyre and Sidon, or even Sodom, which awaits cities like Capernaum (Mat 11:20-24); of a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which shall not be forgiven, either in this world, or in that to come (Mat 12:31-32 ||). His denunciations of the Pharisees are merciless in their severity (Mat 23:14-15; Mat 23:32-33); the language of judgment in many of the parables is hardly less strong (Mat 13:42; Mat 13:50, Mat 18:34, Mat 21:44, Mat 22:7; Mat 22:13 etc.). Those who speak of supposed judgments on others are warned: Nay but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish (Luk 13:3; Luk 13:5); of a Judas it is declared, Good were it for that man if he had not been born (Mat 26:24, Mar 14:21); the parable of the Final Judgment has such a sentence as, Depart from me, ye cursed, etc. (Mat 25:41; Mat 25:46). The Synoptic teaching on this point is identical with that of St. John, who declares that the wrath of God abideth on him who believes (or obeys) not the Son of God (Joh 3:36), and habitually speaks of the world as perishing in its sin (Joh 3:16-17, Joh 5:29, Joh 6:53, Joh 8:24 etc.).
Exposure to the wrath of God, therefore, is one result of sin, from which, undeniably, redemption is needed; but this, in Christs view, is not the worst evil, but rather flows from the infinitely heinous and hateful nature of sin itself. Sin, considered in itself, is the real evil from which men need to be delivered. It is a fountain of pollution in the heart, defiling the whole nature (Mat 15:18-20 ||; cf. Mat 23:27); evolves itself in corrupt words and deeds (Mat 7:16-20, Mat 12:33-37); brings under subjection to Satan (Mat 6:13, Mat 12:29; Mat 12:43-45); is the loss of the souls true life (Mat 16:24-26); entails misery and ruin (Luk 15:11-16, Mat 23:37-38); ripens into hateful vices (impurity, covetousness, pride, hypocrisy, mercilessness, etc.), and culminates in blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mat 12:31-32 etc.). Souls in this condition are lost; need to be, in their helplessness and misery, sought after and saved (Luk 15:3 ff; Luk 19:10). The teaching of Jesus in Jn. is here again in accord with that in the Synoptics; only that in some respects St. Johns Gospel goes deeper, in explicitly affirming the need of regeneration (Luk 3:3; Luk 3:5), in laying more stress on the element of bondage in sin (Luk 8:33-34), and in giving greater prominence to the idea of Satan as the prince of this world, whose power over men has to be broken (Luk 8:44, Luk 12:31, Luk 14:30, Luk 16:11; cf. Luk 10:17-18).
One thing still requires to be said to exhibit in its full extent mans need of redemption. The deepest and most condemnable aspect of sin is that it is alienation from God Himself. The first requirement of the Law is love to God (Mat 22:37-38); the proper attitude of the soul to God is that of humble dependence and trust (Mat 4:4; Mat 4:7; Mat 4:10, Mat 7:25 ff., Mar 11:22; Mar 11:24-25 etc.). But sin is the negation of this right religious relation. I know you, said Jesus to the Jews, that ye have not the love of God in you (Joh 5:42). Other and contrary principlespride, self-sufficiency, self-will, the love of the honour that conies from men (Joh 5:44; cf. Mat 6:2 ff.)had taken the place of love to God; hence estrangement from God, antagonism to His will and spirit, enmity to Him and to His messengers (Mat 23:29 ff.). Redemption means here the effecting of a change of disposition towards God, and the restoration of a spirit of love and trustof the filial spirit (e.g. Luk 15:17 ff.). It is synonymous with reconciliation (see Reconciliation).
(2) This description of the evil to be redeemed from already determines the positive character of the redemption. The preaching of Jesus is described as the preaching of a gospel (Luk 4:18-19). the gospel of God (Mar 1:14)and the salvation (Luk 19:9-10) proclaimed in this gospel included deliverance from the whole range of evil covered by the word sin, with introduction into the whole sphere of privilege and blessedness embraced in the term Kingdom of God. Jesus in His teaching has much to say on the condition of mind necessary for the reception of this blessing. There is naturally the initial demand for repentance (Mat 9:13; Mat 11:20-21, Mar 1:15; Mar 6:12, Luk 13:3; Luk 13:5 etc.), which has the full weight of meaning involved in the etymology of the word , change of mind. There is implied in this change of disposition a parting with all pride, sufficiency, and sense of merit (Luk 17:10); a coming to be humble, simple, trustful as a little child (Mat 18:1-4); in a pregnant phrase, becoming poor in spirit (Mat 5:3, Luk 4:18). To those in this humble, trustful, self-renouncing state of mind every satisfaction and spiritual blessing are promised (e.g. Mat 5:3 ff.; see Iverach, The Other Side of Greatness, p. 1 ff.). This blessing is always represented as mediated through Jesus Himself. It is only through the Son that men can receive the knowledge of the Father (Mat 11:27); it is through coming to Him, learning of Him, taking His yoke upon them, that they obtain rest to their souls (Mat 11:28-30); men are called to follow Him, to become His disciples, to acknowledge Him as their Lord and Master (Mat 7:21-23, Mat 8:19-22, Mat 23:8 etc.). He requires from His disciples the most absolute surrender to Himself (Mat 10:37-39, Mat 16:24-25); it is by relation to Him that men are judged at last (Mat 25:40; Mat 25:45). As King, He dispenses the awards of service (Mat 16:27, Mat 19:28, Mat 25:34 ff.)Of the dependence of salvation on His sufferings and death, more is said below. Those who stand in the above relation to Christ are the children of the kingdom (Mat 13:38), sons of God, and heirs of eternal life. Received into the Kingdom, they have the blessedness of knowing that their sins are forgiven them (Mat 6:12, Mat 9:2 etc.), though, reciprocally, there is laid on those who are thus forgiven the duty of forgiving others (Mat 6:14-15, Mat 18:35, Mar 11:25 etc.). They have the privilege of calling God their Father, of trusting Him for all their need (Mat 6:25 ff.), of free access to Him in prayer (Mat 7:7-11 etc.). They are acknowledged by Christ as His brethren (Mat 12:49-50, Mat 25:40). From the Father they receive mercy, and the satisfaction of their hunger and thirst for righteousness (Mat 5:6-7); they are sustained in persecution and sacrifice by the promise of a thousandfold reward (Mat 5:12, Mat 19:29, Mar 10:29-30); it is theirs to share in the resurrection of the just (Luk 14:14); and as sons and heirs of God, they have the sure hope of eternal life, in which is included blessedness and glory (Mat 13:43) and the perfect vision of God (Mat 5:8). These unspeakably lofty privileges and hopes imply corresponding responsibilities. It is constantly assumed that there cannot be true repentance, or genuine membership in the Kingdom, which does not manifest itself in good works (Mat 5:16), or in the doing of the will of the Father (Mat 6:10). Only the doers of the Fathers will can be received into the Kingdom of heaven (Mat 7:21, Mat 18:4, Mat 25:34 ff.). The disciple is to have for his aim to be perfect as his Father in heaven is perfect (Mat 5:48).
Not a great deal, comparatively, is said in the Synoptic Gospels of the work of the Spirit in imparting these spiritual blessings. But the Spirits presence and agency are nevertheless constantly assumed. Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit after His baptism (Luk 4:1), and it was the Spirit of the Lord upon Him who fitted Him for His saving work (Luk 4:18). The spirit of the Father speaks in the disciples (Mat 10:20). He is, in Lk., the supreme gift of the Father (Mat 11:13). Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the last and highest crime (Mat 12:32 ||). The Baptist announced Jesus as the One who should baptize with the Spirit (Mat 3:11 ||), and the promise of the Spirit is Christs final word to His disciples (Luk 24:49). In the Synoptics, as in Jn., it is assumed that the Spirit was not yet given in His fulness, because Jesus was not yet glorified (Joh 7:39).
The Johannine teaching on salvation is once more, in all essential features, identical with that of the Synoptics. The change of mind insisted on by the latter is, in St. Johns Gospel, directly traced to a regenerating work of the Spirit (Joh 3:3; Joh 3:5), and the doctrine of the Spirit altogether is more developed (Joh 14:26, Joh 15:26, Joh 16:7 ff.); the condition of salvation is expressed generally by the term believing (which includes in it the idea of obeying, cf. Joh 3:18; Joh 3:36); sonship, as the fruit of regeneration, is viewed as a special supernatural gift, the prerogative of believers (Joh 1:12); salvation is connected with Christs being lifted up (Joh 3:14-17, Joh 12:32-33); eternal life is regarded as already begun in the experience of the believer (Joh 3:36, Joh 4:14, Joh 6:47, Joh 17:3 etc.). But the necessity of union with Christ (cf. Joh 15:1-8), the salvation from wrath through Him (Joh 3:16-18; Joh 3:36, Joh 5:24), the dispositions to be laid aside in entering the Kingdom of heaven (Joh 5:44), and the essentials of character to be acquired by its members (humility, love, self-sacrifice, etc., Joh 13:4-17, Joh 15:12, Joh 12:25 etc.), the hope of the resurrection (Joh 5:28-29, Joh 6:40, Joh 11:24-26), and the prospect of ultimately sharing Christs glory in the Fathers house (Joh 14:2-3, Joh 17:24), are outstanding features in St. Johns teaching as they are in that of the earlier Gospels.
(3) The question now recurs as to the connexion of Christs own Person, and especially His sufferings and death, with this redemption, the message of which constitutes His gospel. Certain obvious aspects of that connexion have already been indicated. Christs ministry of teaching and healing was itself a means of redemptionof bringing men to the knowledge of it, of awakening in them the desire for it, of drawing them to the acceptance of it, of putting them in possession of part of its blessing. But in its substance also, as we have seen, Christ and His gospel could not be separated. He alone could reveal the Father, and give the world assurance of His grace; He already, as the Son of Man, exhibited in its perfect form what Divine sonship in the Kingdom of God meant; it was by coming to Him, and learning of Him, that men were initiated into His mind and spirit, which itself was salvation. His purity, conjoined with His sympathy and grace, acted as mighty moral motives in breaking down the enmity of the heart to God and in winning sinners to repentance. These also are the aspects of Christs connexion with redemption,these, and not declarations about atonement,which meet us on the surface of the Gospels. Christ is the Good Shepherd, seeking and finding the lost sheep (Mat 10:6; Mat 15:24; Mat 18:12-14, Luk 15:3-7). All-compassionating, forgiving love is the power He relies on to draw out love (Luk 8:47-50). The very majesty of His claims and the manifest authority with which He spoke gave an added power to His gentleness and grace (Mat 11:27-30).
We have still to ask, however, Is this the whole? Is this the only way in which redemption depends on Christ? If it is, what remains as the foundation of the Apostolic gospel, which undeniably connects redemption in a peculiar way, not with Christs life and teaching, but with His sacrificial sufferings and death? The question is further pressed upon us by particular utterances of Jesus, which likewise appear to point to such connexion. Is this aspect of redemption, as some think; to be excluded from Christs gospel? To find an answer we are driven back upon the wider question of how Jesus Himself viewed His sufferings and death. On this topic, it was remarked above that it is a very misleading method to confine ourselves to the exposition of isolated texts, without taking into account the whole context of Christs thought, and the ideas of OT revelation in which His thought was grounded. It will be necessary to begin at this point in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
A sure datum to start with here is the indubitable consciousness of Jesusattested by the two names Son of God and Son of Manof His Messianic vocation, and consequently of the connexion of the Messianic salvation with His Person. It was He, as the whole Jewish hope implied, who was to bring in that redemption for which Israel waited (Luk 2:38). That Jesus knew Himself to be the Christ, at least from the time of the Baptism, is implied in all the Gospels, though it was only to favoured individuals that the disclosure was directly made (in Jn. to Nathanael, Luk 1:47-51; to Nicodemus, Luk 3:13 ff.; to the Samaritan woman, Luk 4:26 etc.).
It is to misinterpret Peters great confession in Mat 16:16 to take it to mean that up to that time the disciples had no knowledge that Jesus was the Christ. Apart from what is narrated by St. John (Joh 1:41 ff.), the whole ministry of Jesus, as recorded by the Synopticsthe claims He made, the authority He exercisedwas by implication an assertion of that dignity; while to the direct testimony borne by the forerunner (Mat 3:11-12 ||) was added afterwards the answer given to the Baptists doubts (Mat 11:2 ff.). What was new in Peters confession was the inburst of new illumination, and unshakable strength of conviction, with which the confession was made (Mat 16:17-18).
On the other hand, if Jesus knew Himself to be the Messiah of OT prophecy and hope, it is not less certain that He apprehended this great vocation, and the salvation with which it was connected, in a quite different way from most of His contemporaries. Messiahship for Him, as the account of the Temptation shows, meant the definite renunciation of all self-seeking motives, the rejection of all political and worldly ideals, the repudiation of all swerving from the sole end of seeking His Fathers glory. Holding such a conception of His mission, and rooted in His consciousness, as His habitual use of Scripture and manner of deducing deep principles from its simplest words show Him to be, in OT and specially Prophetic teaching, it is impossible that, from the first, He should not have clearly perceived the collision that must ensue between Himself and the ruling classes, and the persecution, and ultimately death, which their enmity must bring upon Him. With so clear a vision of the persecutions, scornings, and death that awaited His disciples (Mat 10:16 ff. ||), He could not be ignorant of His own future. If, however, He saw thus far, it must be that He saw further. The path of self-renunciation and suffering that lay before Him must have presented itself, as we know it did, as part of His Fathers ordainment in the accomplishment of His vocation; not as a fate merely, or even as a martyrdom, but as a necessary step to the founding of His Kingdom, and procurement of the great end of His Comingthe end of salvation. If this, in turn, presented itself as a problem to His thought,we speak, perhaps, too humanly of the way in which Jesus arrived at His convictions,the light was near at hand for its solution in the Prophetic Scriptures, especially in the picture of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. His sufferings were expiatory. No one who reads the Gospels with care can doubt the familiarity of the mind of Jesus with this portion of Prophetic testimony. It is probably this prophecy that was in view in the Baptists announcement to his disciples (Joh 1:29; Joh 1:36); it is contained in the section of Isaiah on the Servant of Jehovah which Jesus cited in the opening of His public ministry as fulfilled in Himself (Luk 4:17 ff.); one interesting passage shows that it was directly before His mind in His last sufferingsFor I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, And he was numbered with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfilment (Luk 22:37). It cannot have been absent from the numerous prophecies which Jesus declared were fulfilled in His death (Mar 9:12; Mar 14:21; Mar 14:27, Luk 18:31; Luk 24:26-27; Luk 24:46); But, indeed, the same strain of thought, sacrificial and Prophetic, which inspired the representation of Jehovahs Servant as One who must and would take upon Himself the burden of the peoples sins, and, in substitutionary love, offer Himself in atonement for them, must have wrought as powerfully in the mind of Jesus, conscious as He was of His peculiar relation to both God and man, and fully aware of what sin was, and of what the forgiveness of sin meant to a holy God. If atonement for the worlds sin was possible, and Jesus in, His representative capacity, and Himself sinless, could offer such atonement, it cannot be doubted that He would desire to do so.
This point of the connexion of the sufferings and death of Jesus with redemption will receive elucidation afterwards; but already, perhaps, it is possible to see how, during His ministry, a relation of His sufferings to His saving mission might be present to His own mind, though He said little of it publicly, and only toward the end of His life spoke freely to His disciples of His approaching death. His reticence on His death would then be paralleled by His reticence on His Messiahship, which yet was present to His consciousness throughout. On such a view it may be found that the phenomena of the Gospels, as we have them, fall naturally into place,His general silence on His death in His public teaching, the occasional disclosures in Jn. and the Synoptics, the connexion of the later announcements of His death with His resurrection, and, after His resurrection, of both with the preaching of remission of sins, and the promise of the Spirit; the coherence of this teaching with the Apostolic gospel.
For now it is to be observed that this silence of Jesus on the connexion of His sufferings and death with His saving work is far from absolute; on the contrary, the intimations of such connexion, when brought together, and read with the help of such a key as Isaiah 53 affords, are neither few nor ambiguous. It is not, indeed, till late in the ministry, after Peters confession, that Jesus begins to speak plainly of His approaching death, and then of that death as Divinely ordained and foretold, and to be followed by resurrection (Mat 16:21; Mat 17:9; Mat 17:22-23; Mat 20:18-19 ||, see above). Thenceforth His death had an absorbing place in His thoughts. It was a cup He had to drink, a baptism He had to be baptized with. He was straitened till it was accomplished (Mat 20:22, Mar 10:32; Mar 10:38, Luk 12:50; cf. Luk 9:51). At the Transfiguration it was, according to St. Luke, the decease () which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem which was the subject of His converse with Moses and Elijah (Luk 9:31). But the very decision and circumstantiality of these first announcements to His disciples imply that the subject had long been before His own thoughts; and that, in conformity with what has already been said, this was really the case, we gather from such a passage as Mat 9:15 (When the bridegroom shall be taken away from them), but much more clearly from the sayings preserved to us by St. John from the Judaean and Capernaum ministries. Here, in the line of the Baptists opening announcement (Joh 1:29), the connexion between Christs death and the salvation of the world is unmistakably declared. Thus, in the conversation with Nicodemus, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, etc. (Joh 3:14-16; cf. on the lifting up, Joh 12:33), and in the remarkable discourse at Capernaum, in which Jesus dilates on His flesh as given for the life of the world, and on His blood as shed (we must presume) for the same end (Joh 6:51-56). In the light of these sayings we must, in consistency, interpret others more general in character (e.g. Joh 10:11; Joh 10:15; Joh 10:17-18, Joh 12:24; Joh 12:23).
When we return to the Synoptics, we have again, in the closing period, more than one significant utterance. There is first the well-known passage preserved in both Mt. and Mk.: The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom () for many ( ) (Mat 20:28, Mar 10:45).
It does not rob this passage of its force that it occurs in impressing on the disciples the lesson that the true greatness lies in service. No one will suppose that Jesus could have used language such as He here employs about the disciples, or about any other than Himself. The incidental occurrence of the saying may rather suggest that there must have been other teaching on the subject, and that Jesus here assumes the saving purpose of His death as known to the disciples.
The significance of the word is investigated in art. Ransom; it is enough now to say that the word is most naturally taken as the equivalent of the Hebrew (allied to to atone), used of that which is given in exchange for a life, whether money or another life. The thought in Jesus mind may well have been that of Isaiah 53. The meaning would then be that His death is the redemption-price by which the many are delivered from the ruin entailed by sin (including both the guilt and the power of sin). There is, again, the passage already cited, Luk 22:37, directly glancing at Isaiah 53, and declaring it to be fulfilled in Christs death. There are, finally, the words at the Supper, which, amidst the variations in the four accounts we have of them (Mat 26:26-28, Mar 14:22-25, Luk 22:19-20, 1Co 11:23-25), present certain very distinguishable ideas. The bread is Christs body, the cup is Christs blood. The body is given or broken and the blood is shed for the disciples (in Mt. and Mk. for many). The very variations support the general meaning put upon the act. If Mt. and Mk. have not the words given or broken spoken of the body (Luke, Paul?), both have shed for many of the blood. Lk. has both given for you and poured out for you; St. Paul, on the other hand, has My body, which is [broken?] for you, but not the corresponding shed for you. All agree in the leading feature, that Jesus said: This is my blood of the covenant (Mt., Mk.), or This cup is the new covenant in my blood (Luke, Paul). Mt. adds: which is shed for many unto the remission of sins. Even if it were conceded, what there is no necessity for conceding, that this logion is less original than the others [there is probably a reminiscence of Jer 31:34], it has at least the value that it shows the sense in which Christs words were understood in the Apostolic age. That Jesus, therefore, in the words at the Supper, represents His death as a sacrifice for the salvation of many, and definitely connects the shedding of His blood with the remission of sins and the making of a New Covenant, is nearly as certain as anything in exegesis can be. The question that remains isWith what special sacrifice does Jesus regard His death as connected (Passover, ratificatory sacrifices at Sinai)? Probably it is not necessary to decide between different views. Jesus may well have regarded His death as fulfilling the truth of all propitiatory sacrifice.
There is yet one other fact to which attention needs to be directed in this connexion. The death of Jesus is evidently dwelt upon by the Evangelists with a special sense of solemnity and mystery, and there are features in the story of His Passion which deepen this feeling of mystery, and compel us to seek some special explanation. Such features are the mental perturbation which the thought of His death awoke in Jesus (Now is my soul troubled, etc., Joh 12:27); the sore amazement and sorrow even unto death in the Garden (Mar 14:33-34); the sweat as of drops of blood, and words about the Cup (Luk 22:42-44, Mat 26:39); the awful words upon the Cross, speaking to a loss of the sense and comfort of Gods presence (Mat 27:46, Mar 15:14). We recall MLeod Campbells words: When I think of our Lord as tasting death, it seems to me as if He alone ever truly tasted death (Atonement, ch. vii.). Is there nothing which connects itself with Christs position as sin-bearer here? It is not thus martyrs are wont to die; not thus did Stephen, or Paul, or Ignatius die. Why, then, so strange a contrast in the Lord and Master of them all? On any hypothesis, must we not say that we have here something which takes this death out of the rank of simple martyrdom? Let us now take with this Christs last cry upon the cross, It is finished (, Joh 19:30), and mark how this most unusual death is followed by a resurrection, and, after the resurrection, by an apparently changed relation of Christ to both God and man; by commissions and promises which imply that this death has been a turning-point in the history of salvation, the opening of a new dispensation of the Spirit, and of the preaching to mankind of the remission of sins in Christs name (Mat 28:16-20, Luk 24:45-49, Joh 20:21-23, Act 1:4-8), and it may be found difficult to deny that, even within the limits of the Gospels, a saving significance is attributed to Christs death, in perfect consonance with that ascribed to it in the Apostolic gospel.
4. The Apostolic doctrine (Acts, the Epistles, the Book of Revelation).(a) It is told by St. Luke that Jesus opened the minds of His disciples to understand from the Scriptures that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name unto all the nations (24:46, 47). From the first, therefore, we find the Apostles giving prominence to the death and resurrection of Christ as Divinely ordained events, with which salvation was connected (Act 2:23-33; Act 2:36; Act 2:38; Act 3:13-18; Act 4:10-12); It Would be unreasonable to look for theology in addresses which had for their primary object to bring home to the consciences of the hearers their crime in crucifying the Holy and Righteous One (Act 3:14). We need not wonder, therefore, that we do not find it in these early discourses in the Acts. Yet the conviction was plainly there that, in some sense, Christ, as St. Paul says, had died for our sins (1Co 15:3), and had been exalted to bestow salvation, and that through faith in Him, and only through faith in His name (Act 3:12), was the wrath of God averted (Act 2:21), remission of sins obtained (Act 2:38, Act 3:19, Act 10:43, Act 13:38-39, etc.), the gift of the Holy Ghost received (Act 2:38, Act 11:16-17 etc.), and the way prepared for seasons of refreshing and the times of restoration of all things (Act 3:19-21). Very early, however, through deeper reflexion and the growing illumination of the Spirit, there necessarily came to be given a more definite interpretation of this connexion of Christs death with human salvation. Sacrificial and expiatory ideas were freely taken over upon it (cf. Act 20:28); a new vocabulary sprang up; there was speech, as in the common doctrine of the Epistles (cf. 1Co 15:3 that which also I received), of Christ bearing our sins (1Pe 2:24, Heb 9:28, cf. 2Co 5:21), suffering for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous (1Pe 3:18, cf. Rom 5:6; Rom 5:8), redeeming us by his blood (Eph 1:7, 1Pe 1:18-19, Rev 5:9): offering Himself as a sacrifice for sins (Heb 10:12), giving himself a ransom f or us (1Ti 2:6), becoming a propitiation (1Jn 2:2; 1Jn 4:10), etc. This more definite mode of conceiving of everything in salvation as depending on the redeeming death of Christ led, in turn, to a change in the form of presenting the gospel. Instead of attention being directed primarily, as in the Gospels, to the nature of salvation, as flowing from the mercy of God, the mind is now turned, above all, to the Person by whom redemption is effected, to His sacrifice as the means of redemption, and to the necessity of faith in Him as the condition of salvation. In this new perspective, the whole state of salvation and every blessing included in it are viewed as the fruit of Christs redeeming death. An immediate effect is forgiveness (Act 2:38; Act 13:38, Rom 4:6-8, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14, 1Jn 1:9; 1Jn 2:12, Rev 1:5 etc.). But Christ redeems also out of this present evil world (delivers, Gal 1:4), from all iniquity (Tit 2:14), from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers, etc. (1Pe 1:18). St. Pauls special conceptions are referred to below. The efficacy of this redemption is placed by all NT writers, after the sacrificial analogy, in the blood (Act 20:28, Rom 3:25, Eph 1:7, Heb 9:12 and passim, 1Pe 1:2; 1Pe 1:19, 1Jn 1:7, Rev 1:5; Rev 5:9 etc.), which here is the symbol of a sacrifice that culminates in death. This strain of teaching is so inwrought into the texture of Apostolic teaching, that it is impossible by any ingenuity of exegesis to get rid of it, or make it mean essentially anything else than what the words naturally convey, viz. that the death of Jesus had a direct and indispensable redeeming efficacy, arising from its character as an expiation for sin.
(b) The NT writer who has given this redeeming character of Christs death its most complete theological elucidation, it will be universally conceded, is St. Paul. A full exposition of the concatenation of his ideas hardly falls within the scope of this article, but the general import of the Apostles teaching on redemption is not difficult to grasp. Starting with the fact of sin as bringing the world, both Gentile and Jewish, under the condemnation () of God (Rom 1:1-32; Rom 2:1-29; Rom 3:1-31; Rom 5:16; Rom 5:18; Rom 8:1 etc.), he proceeds to the exhibition of Gods method of salvation, in bringing to mankind a new righteousness (the righteousness of God), to be received by faith (Rom 1:17; Rom 3:21-22; Rom 3:26; Rom 5:17-21, 2Co 5:21, Php 3:9 etc.). This righteousness comes through the propitiatory death of Christ (Rom 3:25); is initially realized in Christs sacrificial death, which is at the same time the culmination of His obedience (Rom 5:19, Php 2:8); proceeds from His Cross, and is applied in Gods justifying act to the salvation of the individual believer (Rom 3:24; Rom 3:26; Rom 5:1; Rom 8:1; Rom 8:33), who thereby is constituted the righteousness of God in him (2Co 5:21, Php 3:9), or is justified (Rom 3:24; Rom 5:1), i.e. pronounced righteous. The salvation thus provided in Christ is a redemption (Rom 3:24, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14). The connexion of it with Christs death is, that Christ honours the righteousness of God in Himself consenting to be made sin for us (2Co 5:21), or endure sins condemnation in His own Person, that sinners may be saved. He redeems from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us (Gal 3:13; Gal 4:4-5). How such vicarious endurance of anothers was possible, St. Paul does not explain; but we may gather from the context of his thought that he would find the explanation in the peculiarity of the representative relation which Christ sustained to our race (Rom 5:12-21, 2Co 5:14-15); in the perfection of His identification with the world in sympathy and love (Gal 1:4; Gal 2:20; Gal 5:2 etc.); and in the fact that a vital union is constituted between the believer and Christ by faith, so that the acts of the Head are participated in by the members (Rom 6:3 ff.). St. Paul attaches great importance to the corporate idea (Rom 14:7-9, 1Co 12:12 ff.), and to the representative principle involved in it (Rom 5:12 ff.). Christ, in His complete identification with the race He came to save, took part in its responsibilities as under a broken law, and magnified the righteousness of God (Rom 3:25; Rom 3:31) in His endurance of death, which is the wages of sin (Rom 6:23). Sinless Himself, the sin of the world met in Him, and was atoned for in His perfect response to the mind of God in His judgment on that sin.
The attempt has been made to explain St. Pauls doctrine of the atoning character of Christs death as a survival of his older Rabbinical notions, as well as to make out an inconsistency between this side of his teaching and his other doctrine of mystical union with Christ. But to the Apostles own mind there was no inconsistency. St. Pauls conceptions of law, of righteousness, of sin and Its desert, had their roots in something far deeper than Rabbinismeven in the OT; and there was to His thought no contradiction in setting forth Christs death as the objective ground of mans acceptance with God, and at the same time in teaching that the end of salvation was holinessa holiness which could be realized only through dying to sin with Christ, and rising again with Him to life in the Spirit; in other words, through personal, vital union with the Risen Lord.
(c) In the remaining writings of the NT, while the ideas are less developed theologically, and the distinctive nomenclature of St. Paul is not used, emphasis is not less strongly laid on Christs death as a propitiatory and redeeming sacrifice (Rom 1:18-19, 2Pe 2:1, Heb 9:12; Heb 9:15, cf. Rom 3:25), cleansing from the guilt and power of sin (1Jn 1:7; 1Jn 1:9, Heb 2:17; Heb 9:14 etc.), saving from wrath (Heb 2:2-3; Heb 9:26 ff., 1Pe 4:17-18, Rev 5:9, cf. Rev 7:14; Rev 14:4 ff. etc.), rescuing from the power of the world and the devil (Heb 2:14-15, 1Pe 1:18; 1Pe 5:8 etc.), giving access to God (1Pe 3:18, Heb 4:14-16; Heb 10:19-22 etc.), introducing into a new state of unspeakable privilege and felicity (1Pe 1:9-10; 1Pe 2:9-10, 2Pe 1:11, 1Jn 3:1-3 etc.).
Occasionally there seem links of connexion between the Epistles and the teaching of the Gospels. It is difficult, e.g., not to see in St. Johns He was manifested to take away sins ( ); and in him is no sin (1Jn 3:5), a reminiscence of the Baptists similar saying in Joh 1:29 ( , ); or in St. Pauls, Who gave himself a ransom for all ( 1Ti 2:6), an echo of the words of Jesus in Mar 10:45 ( ). In 1 Peter there is a blending of both sacrificial and Prophetic language. Jesus redeems with His precious blood ( )the blood of the Sinless One (1Pe 1:19; 1Pe 2:22); but in other places we have a clear falling back upon the ideas and language of Isaiah 53 (e.g. 1Pe 2:23-25). Christs death did for believers all that the suffering of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 was to do for the people, and all that redeeming sacrifices did under the OT, only now in a grander and more effectual way. And St. Peter says that his readers knew this (1Pe 1:18)it was the familiar doctrine of the Church. In 1 John we have prominence given to the idea of propitiation (, 1Jn 2:2, 1Jn 4:10). The term points to the effect of Christs sacrifice, not on men, but on God, in averting His wrath or displeasure against sin (cf. Isa 12:1). The Book of Revelation, again, moves in the distinctively sacrificial circle of ideas. The centre of worship is the Lamb that was slain (Rev 5:8-9; Rev 5:12), who, loving us, loosed () us from our sins by his blood (Rev 1:5), and purchased () unto God with His blood men of every nation (Rev 5:9-10)those described after (Rev 7:14), in strong paradox, as having washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. If the design was to ascribe an expiatory and redeeming efficacy to the death of Christ, it is difficult to see in what stronger way it could have been done.
It is in the Epistle to the Hebrews, however, that the relation between Christs redemption and the sacrificial ritual of the OT is most fully wrought out. The writer of the Epistle evidently proceeds upon the view which regards the Levitical sacrifices as having a propitiatory value through the vicarious shedding of the blood (Heb 9:22 and passim)the victim bearing the sins of the transgressor, and atoning for them by its death. Yet he is as clearly conscious of the typical and shadowy character of the sacrificial system (Heb 10:1), and of its inability to effect a real redemption. He lays it down as a self-evident principle that it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins (Heb 10:4). The inadequacy of the OT sacrifices is seen in their number and their continual repetition (Heb 10:1-3); while the imperfection in the reconciliation wrought by them was signified by the barriers still interposed to complete approach to God (Heb 9:6-10). But now, once for all (), Christ has offered the perfect sacrifice which the Law could not provide, and has obtained eternal redemption for us (Heb 9:11; Heb 9:26). He is at once high priest and victim, for the sacrifice He offers is the sacrifice of Himself (Heb 9:26). It is a true sacrifice for sins He offers. He is a high priest to make propitiation for the sins of the people ( , Heb. idiom, Heb 2:17). He was once offered to bear the sins of many (Heb 9:28); He has offered one sacrifice for sins for ever (Heb 10:12). It was appointed unto men once to die (Heb 9:27); and Christ has died once for men. His sacrifice avails for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, sins which the sacrifices of the Law could not remove (Heb 9:15). To the question, Wherein lay the superior virtue of this sacrifice of Christ as contrasted with the typical sacrifices? the writer of the Epistle would answer, in the Divine dignity of the Offerer (the Son, Heb 1:1-3 etc.), in the true humanity He has assumed (Heb 2:14-16), in the perfect sympathy and love with which He identifies Himself with His brethren (Himself being tempted and having suffered, Heb 2:10; Heb 2:17-18, Heb 4:14-16, Heb 7:26-28), above all in the obedient will in the offering itself. His sacrifice had in it this ethical element of surrender to God. The principal passage here is Heb 10:5-9. It is not meant in this passage that the simple doing of the will of God is itself the sacrifice, or takes the place of it; but it is the ethical quality of the sacrifice; it is the fact that it is an act of holy, intelligent obedience which gives the sacrifice its value: by the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb 10:10). The sacrifice of Jesus, the Epistle teaches, at once redeems and consecrates.
5. Reasonableness of the Biblical doctrine.The reasonableness of the Biblical doctrine of redemption, peculiarly of the NT connexion of redemption with the suffering and death of Jesus as a sacrifice for sins, can be rightly appreciated only in the light of the Bibles own presuppositions on the character of God, on the infinite demerit of sin, on the necessity of a vindication of the righteousness of God in the forgiveness of sin, on the peculiar relation of Christ to God and man, qualifying Him to make atonement for sin, and effect a perfect reconciliation between God and humanity. More definitely, among the presuppositions of the doctrine are to be noted the following:(1) The Biblical doctrine of the righteousness of God. By righteousness is meant that in God which grounds the moral order of the world, and pledges Him to uphold that order. While, in its connexion with mercy, righteousness is frequently represented as a saving, redeeming attribute, it cannot be merged wholly, as some (e.g. Ritschl) would have it, in either love or Fatherhood. There is an essential right for God as well as for men, and righteousness is that attribute of His character which leads Him to establish, uphold, and vindicate that right in all His dealings and relations with moral beings.(2) The Biblical recognition of the organic constitution of mankind. Humanity has a unity as a race (cf. Act 17:26), a corporate life and responsibilities, a solidarity, in virtue of which none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself, (Rom 14:7). There is personal responsibility, but there is also a measure of responsibility which every one is called to assume for others. Good acts do not end with the doer, but their benefits overflow to others. Similarly, the penalties of transgression are never confined to the transgressor, but overflow on all connected with him, and on society. One illustration of this principle is seen in heredity. As, however, through this principle it is possible for one to injure others, and for the penalties of evil-doing to be entailed on the innocent, so it is possible for one to act and suffer for the benefit and redemption of others. Scripture doctrine knows nothing of pure individualism. One is blessed in another; one is helped by the intercession of another; one would willingly, if he could, atonesometimes, in a relative way, does seek to atonefor the sin of another. (On the application to redemption, cf. Rom 5:12 ff.).(3) The Biblical view of the infinite evil and hatefulness of sin. Sin is direct contrariety to the holiness of God. Eternally, therefore, holiness must react against it in condemnation and punishment (cf. Rom 1:18). It follows that, even in forgiving sin, God cannot tamper with the condemning testimony of His law against it, but must provide for the vindication of His righteousness in the passing of it by (cf. Rom 3:25, Heb 9:15).(4) The Biblical truth of Christs essential and peculiar relation to our race. This lies at the foundation of everything that is declared of Christs redeeming activity. He is the Son of God,standing in a quite peculiar relation to both God and humanity. That relation to our race is grounded (a) in His general relation to creation (Joh 1:2-4, 1Co 8:6, Col 1:15-17 etc.), and (b) in His condescending grace in becoming manin His incarnation (Php 2:5 ff., Heb 2:14 etc.).(5) In this relation also account is to be taken of Christs perfect sinlessness (2Co 5:21, 1Pe 2:22, 1Jn 3:5 etc.), and of His complete identification of Himself with our race in sympathy and love. Here already the substitutionary forces of love come into fullest play.(6) The Biblical assertion that, in this identification, Christ made Himself one with us in our whole position of responsibility and ruin under the broken and dishonoured law of God (Rom 8:3, Gal 4:4 etc.). In this position it is impossible but that Christ should take cognizance of the relation in which sin has placed the world, not only to the commanding, but also to the condemning and punishing, will of God, and should desire, as mans Redeemer, to do the highest honour to that, as to all else in Gods relation to sin.(7) Historically, it is certain that Jesus did enter, in the fullest way possible to a sinless being, into what may be called the penal evil of our state; into the experience of the deepest meaning of that evil; above all, into death, the culminating form of that evil. When even a Bushnell can speak of Jesus as incarnated into the curse of our condition (cf. Forgiveness and Law, pp. 150, 155, 158); can describe Him as doing all that He does and suffers, in a way to honour the precept, enforce the penalty, and sanctify the justice of law; the precept as right, the penalty as righteous, the justice as the fit vindication of the righteousness of God; and declares that no moral account of His gospel, separated from this, can be anything but a feeble abortion (Vic. Sac. pt. iii. ch. vi.), it may be felt that there is no supreme difficulty in believing that Christ, in our name and nature, may, in His acceptance of suffering and death, have rendered that acknowledgment of the righteousness of God in His condemnation of sin, which holiness demands, in order that sin may be righteously forgiven.
ii. Ecclesiastical development.In a brief sketch of the ideas and theories which have prevailed in the Church on the subject of redemption, only leading points can be indicated. It was only to be expected that, in the multitude of aspects under which redemption is represented in Scripture, much diversity would appear in the manner in which the doctrine was apprehended by different minds in the Church. And this is what we find.
1. In the immediately post-Apostolic age, little was done to elucidate the connexion of Christs suffering and death with redemption. The Fathers of that age, while profuse in their allusions to redemption through the blood of Christ, content themselves, mostly, with the repetition of the Apostolic phrases, and offer no theological interpretation. The age of the Apologists which succeeded was, if possible, even more barren in this direction. Still, even in this earliest period, it would not be difficult to show that the essential fact of redemption by Christ was never lost sight of. Clement of Rome (Ep. 49), as later Irenaeus (v. xvii. 3), lays stress on Christs giving His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls; and sometimes, as in Polycarp and the Epistle to Diognetus, a remarkably clear and evangelical note is struck. Reflexion on the mode of redemption may be said properly to begin with the old Catholic FathersIrenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, etc. A leading idea in Irenaeus is that of the recapitulatio of the whole of humanity in Jesus Christ. That is, Jesus sums up all history, all stages and experiences of human life, in Himself, and so can represent humanity as its Redeemer. He enters as a new Head into our race; retracts the disobedience of the Fall by His own obedience; gains a complete victory over Satan; and honours the justice of God by His submission to death for our sins (ii. xxii. 4, iii. xviii. 6, xxi. 10, v. ii. 1, etc.). This Father is sometimes credited with the idea of a ransom paid to Satan, but any allusion of this kind in him hardly gets beyond a rhetorical figure (v. i. 1). He teaches explicitly that Christ by His death has reconciled us to God, and procured for us forgiveness (iii. xvi. 9, v. xvi. 3, etc.). Origen, as Harnack (Hist. Dogm. ii. 367) observes, regarded Christs redemption from many points of view (victory over Satan, expiation offered to God, ransom paid to Satan). The grotesque theory of a ransom paid to Satanthe devil, however, being deceived in the transaction, as he found he could not hold the soul of Jesusis, in Origen also, hardly more than rhetoric (on Mat 16:8); but the idea took hold, and, sometimes alone, sometimes along with other conceptions, was propounded by subsequent theologians, and in the Middle Ages, as far down as Bernard and the Schoolmen, as a serious theory of redemption. Other prominent teachers, however, as Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, Anselm, would have nothing to do with it (see Ransom). Athanasius takes a further step, and in his treatise on The Incarnation of the Word makes a brief, reasoned attempt at the rationale of salvation. God had ordained death as the penalty of sin, and, as it was impossible for God to lie, it was necessary that this penalty should be inflicted (Incar. 6, 8, 9, etc.). But it was not fitting that God should allow His creation to perish; the Logos, therefore, Creator of the world, having assumed our nature, endured this penalty in our stead, and brought into our race anew a principle of incorruption (ib. 8, 9). The Latin Church naturally (Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine) gave more prominence than the Greek Church to the idea of satisfaction to law or justice, but in Greek writers also (Cyril, Chrysostom, etc.) this idea is not wanting. It is important to observe that Augustine, and the Fathers generally, never lose sight of the fact that it is Gods love which is the cause of Christs reconciliation; not Christs death, as an appeasement of justice, which is the cause of the love (Aug. on Joh 17:21-26; Calvin endorses this view, Instit. ii. xvi. 3, 4).
2. A new period in the history of this doctrine begins with Anselm in his Cur Deus Homo. Anselms theory turns on the necessity of a satisfaction to Gods violated honour; but it is noteworthy that he does not find this satisfaction in the penal endurance of our curse. His theory moves rather in the circle of the Catholic ideas of supererogatory merit. Christ, as man, was bound to obey Gods law, but, as sinless man, He was not bound to die. His voluntary submission to a shameful death, therefore, for the glory of His Father, was an act of such transcendent merit as infinitely to outweigh all the dishonour done to God by humanity. Anselm is strong in basing the necessity for satisfaction in Gods nature; but his theory is faulty in the idea of merit on which it turns, in its ignoring of the penal aspect, and in its too external character. Abelard represented the opposite pole of doctrinethe purely moral view of the effect of Christs death. Bernard opposed Abelard, and gave prominence to the important thought of the vicarious suffering of the Head for the members (vers. Abel. vi. 15). Aquinas sought, but without real logical cohesion, to combine all these points of view in a comprehensive scheme. Meanwhile, in accordance with the scholastic tendency to exalt the will of God at the expense of His other attributes, atonement was removed from the ground of necessity in the Divine nature on which Anselm had placed it, and was rested on the mere fiat of the Divine sovereignty (Duns Scotus). To this tendency the whole body of the Reformers, in the great religious upheaval of the 16th cent., strenuously opposed themselves, and, with their clearer views of what was needed as the basis of the sinners justification, definitely placed the atonement on the ground of a satisfaction to eternal law. Sin they regarded as a violation of the order of public law that is upheld by Gods authority, a violation of the law that is correlate with the eternal being of God Himself; they estimated the atoning work of Christ by reference to that justice of God which finds its expression in the eternal law (Ritschl). It is this view that it embodied in the Protestant creeds. Socinianism denied the necessity of all satisfaction for sin, and explained Christs work, as man, in terms of His prophetic office. The later Governmental theory of Grotius likewise denied the need of satisfaction to essential justice, and sought a basis for the atonement in rectoral considerations. Christs death was a penal example for the upholding of public law, and the deterring from future sin. The Covenant theology viewed redemption as flowing from a compact between the Divine Persons, in which Christ became surety for the elect, and purchased their salvation by His death in their room.
3. The increasingly mechanical and narrowly legal character which thus tended to be stamped on redemption led, as it was bound to do, to a reaction. Modern theology has been marked, accordingly, by a considerable revolt against every form of satisfaction theory, and by a return, in one form or another, to views more purely ethical.
(1) In certain of these theories Christs redeeming work is brought mainly under the head of revelation. Its essence lies in His revelation of the character and will of grace of the Father. His death is the culminating point in this revelation, and the supreme test of His fidelity to God in His vocation (thus, e.g., Ritschl).(2) Bushnells theory attaches itself specially to the idea of sympathy in Christ, and finds in this the key to His vicarious sufferings. The redeeming quality of Christs sufferings lies wholly in their moral efficacy. Christ simply engages, at the expense of great suffering and even of death itself, to bring us out of our sins themselves, and so out of their penalties (Vic. Sac. pt. i. ch. 1). Later, Bushnell felt the need of doing more justice to the idea of propitiation; but, while allowing that Christ came under the penal sanctions of sin, he still held that these sanctions were never punitive, but only coercive and corrective (Forg. and Law, p. 132). But what does penal mean, if not punitive?(3) A third class of theories lays main emphasis on the surrender to the Father of the holy will of Christ. In this lies the essence of His redeeming sacrifice for humanity (Maurice, F. W. Robertson, Erskine of Linlathen, etc.).(4) A profounder view, in some respects, is that of MLeod Campbell, whose ideas have considerably influenced later theology both at home (Moberly) and on the Continent (e.g. Hring). Campbell finds the essence of Christs atonement in what he calls a vicarious repentance for sin. The language is unfortunate, for, in strictness, no one can repent for another, though he may confess the sin of another, and intercede for that other. The real value of Campbells theory lies in its attempt to give an ethical and inward character to Christs dealing with the wrath of God against sin. He recognizes that sins guilt, and the reality of the Divine condemnation of sin, cannot be ignored. There is but one way, he holds, in which that condemnation can be met, namely, by entering fully into Gods mind regarding sin, and rendering to His judgment upon it a perfect response. In his own words, there goes up an Amen from the depths of the humanity of Christ to the Divine condemnation of sin (Atonement, pp. 117118). This Amen, in Christs case, is viewed by him as rendered, not in naked existence (i.e. in purely mental realization), but under actual experience of the power of evil, and of death, viewed as including the sentence of the law against sin (ib. pp. 259262). A note is touched here which perhaps takes us very near the heart of the matter.(5) Moberlys view in his Atonement and Personality has affinity with Campbells, but differs from it in viewing punishment in this life as only disciplinarychastisement inflicted for the good of the transgressorand never retributive. [Punishment, however, must be felt to be ones due, or it has no good effect]. Punishment in itself does not atone; atonement arises only when the punishment is met by a spirit of perfect contrition. The essence of atonement is penitential holiness. This, it is held with Campbell, is perfectly realized in Christ alone. In Christ is offered a perfect contrition for the sins of the world. But it is offered in Christ only that it may be reproduced in the believer. Great difficulty, on this theory, must be felt to attach to the idea of penitence as an element in Christs consciousness; besides, it is after all, not Christs perfect penitence that is held to be the ground of forgiveness, but the spirit of contrition awakened in the believer himself. Christs work has its value as producing that. Forgiveness, it is further taught, is not complete at once, but is proportioned to the degree of penitence; surely not a Scriptural notion.
The result of the total survey will probably be to impress upon us: (a) how defective the best of human theories are to express the whole truth on this great subject; (b) the fact that elements of truth are embraced in nearly all the theories, which a more complete view must endeavour to conserve; and (c) the need of continually reverting from human theories to the original statements in Scripture itself, which, in their breadth, variety, and fulness, refresh and satisfy as nothing else can.
Literature.Ritschl, Recht. und Vershnung, Bd. ii.; A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the OT (viii.x.); Dillmann, Alttest. Theol.; other Biblical Theologies of OT (Schultz, Oehler, etc.); Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion To-day (1902), p. 194 ff.; artt. Righteousness, Redemption, in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ; Stevens, The Theology of the NT, and The Christian Doctrine of Salvation (ethical aspects; rejects penal view).On NT teaching: Denney, The Death of Christ; Walker, The Cross and Kingdom (Sayings of Jesus, pts. ii. iii.); Scott-Lidgett, The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement (ch. iii.); Crawford, The Atonement (pt. i.); Dale, The Atonement (ii.vi.); Bib. Theologies of NT (Weiss, etc.).On Christs work in Redemption: F. D. Maurice, Theological Essays (vii. The Doctrine of Sacrifice); Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice, and Forgiveness and Law; MLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement; D. W. Simon, The Redemption of Man, and Reconciliation by Incarnation; Ritschl, Justification and Reconciliation, vol. iii.; Moberly, Atonement and Personality; Khler, Die Lehre von der Vershnung; Seeberg, Der Tod Christi; Dale, Scott-Lidgett, Walker, Stevens, etc., as above.On criticism of theories: Ritschl, as above, vol. i.; Crawford, Dale, Scott-Lidgett, Stevens, etc.On history of doctrine: Harnack, Dogmengeschichte [English translation in 7 vols.]; Orr, Progress of Dogma (vii.).
James Orr.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Redemption
This term signifies ‘being set free, brought back.’ God having smitten the firstborn of the Egyptians, claimed all the firstborn of Israel, and received the Levites instead of them; but there not being an equivalent number of the Levites, the residue of the firstborn were redeemed by money: they were thus set free. Num 3:44-51. So the land, or one who sold himself, could be redeemed. Lev 25:23-24; Lev 25:47; Lev 25:54. The Israelites were redeemed out of Egypt by the mighty power of God. Exo 15:13. From thence the subject rises to the redemption of the soul or life, forfeited because of sin. Man cannot give to God a ransom for his brother: for the redemption of the soul is precious, or costly, and it (that is, redemption) ceaseth, or must be given up, for ever: that is, all thought of attempting to give a ransom must be relinquished – it is too costly. Psa 49:7-8.
In the N.T. there are two words translated ‘redemption,’ embracing different thoughts. The one is , , ‘to loose, a loosing, a loosing away,’ hence deliverance by a ransom paid, redeemed.
The other word is , ‘to buy as from the market.’ Christ has redeemed believers from the curse of the law. Gal 3:13; Gal 4:5. Christians are exhorted to be “redeeming the time,” that is, buying or securing the opportunity. Eph 5:16; Col 4:5. A kindred word, , is translated in the A.V. ‘to buy,’ except in Rev 5:9; Rev 14:3-4, where it is rendered ‘redeem,’ but would be better ‘buy.’ The difference is important in such a passage as 2Pe 2:1, where it could not be said ‘redeemed,’ for those spoken of are such as deny Christ’s rights of purchase, and bring on themselves swift destruction though they had been ‘bought.’ Christ ‘bought’ all, but only believers are ‘redeemed.’ Christians sometimes speak of ‘universal redemption’ without really meaning it, because they do not observe the difference between ‘buying’ and ‘redeeming.’ Eph 1:14 embraces both thoughts: “the redemption of the purchased possession.”
Redemption is sometimes used in the sense of the right or title to redeem (Psa 130:7; Rom 3:24); and this right God has righteously secured to Himself in Christ, and in virtue of it He presents Himself to man as a Justifier. Hence redemption was secured for God before man entered into the virtue of it. But believers have it now by faith, in the sense of forgiveness of sins, in Christ, where it is placed for God. Eph 1:7. And in result redemption will extend to the body. Rom 8:23; Eph 4:30. In application, the term redemption covers the power in which it is made effectual, as well as the ground or condition on which it is founded; this was set forth in type in the case of Israel.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Redemption
Of persons or property
Lev 25:25-34; Lev 27:2-33; Rth 4:3-10
Redemption money paid to priests
Num 3:46-51
Of firstborn
Firstborn
Of land
Jubilee
Of our souls
– General references
Psa 111:9; Psa 130:7; Mat 20:28; Mar 10:45; Luk 2:38; Act 20:28; Rom 3:24-26; 1Co 1:30; 1Co 6:20; 1Co 7:23; Gal 1:4; Gal 2:20; Gal 4:4-5; Eph 1:7; Eph 5:2; Col 1:14; Col 1:20-22; 1Ti 2:6; Tit 2:14; Heb 9:12; Heb 9:15; 1Pe 1:18-19; Rev 5:9-10 Atonement; Ransom
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
REDEMPTION
(1) God the Author of
Psa 31:5; Psa 119:9; Psa 130:7; Isa 43:1; Luk 1:68; Luk 2:38; Eph 4:30
–SEE Salvation (1), SALVATION
(2) Through Christ
Rom 3:24; 1Co 1:30; Gal 3:13; Col 1:14; Tit 2:14; Heb 9:12
1Pe 1:18; Rev 5:9
–SEE See Blood (1), CHRIST JESUS
Atonement (1), ATONEMENT
Cross of Christ, CROSS OF CHRIST
Salvation (2), SALVATION
Death (8), SAVIOUR
(3) Of Land and Persons
Lev 25:27; Lev 49:19; Neh 5:8
Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible
Redemption
apolytrosis (G629) Redemption, Deliverance
katallage (G2643) Reconciliation
hilasmos (G2434) Atonement, Propitiation
The New Testament uses three major sets of images to explain the inestimable benefits of Christ’s death and passion. Although these benefits transcend human thought and therefore cannot be expressed perfectly in language, they must nevertheless be described in words and in terms of human relationships. As in similar cases, Scripture approaches this central truth from many complimentary perspectives that compensate for one another’s weaknesses and that serve to express the multifaceted nature of this truth. The three words used to represent these sets of images are apolytrosis (redemption), katallage (reconciliation), and hilasmos (propitiation). Almost every word and phrase that directly bears on this aspect of our salvation through Christ is related to one of these three words.
Apolytrosis is the word that Paul preferred. In drawing attention to this, Chrysostom correctly observed that Paul’s use of apo (G575) expresses the completeness of our redemption in Christ, a redemption not followed by any bondage: “He did not speak simply of a lytrosis but of an apolytrosis as we no longer return again to the same bondage.” Apo has the same force in apokatallassein, which means “to reconcile absolutely,” apokaradokia (G603), and apekdechesthai (G553; Rom 8:19). Both apolytrosis and lytrosis appear late in the Greek language; lytrotes (G3086) seems to be unique to the Greek Scriptures (Lev 25:31; Psa 19:14; Act 7:35).
When Theophylact defined apolytrosis as “the recall from captivity,” he overlooked its most important aspect. Apolytrosis is not just “recall from captivity” but “the rescue of captives from captivity through the payment of a ransom.” The idea of deliverance through a lytron (G3083) or antallagma (a price paid) is central to these words (Isa 52:3; 1Pe 1:18-19), though in actual use it often is absent in words from this family (cf. Isa 35:9). Thus apolytrosis is related to an entire group of significant words, not only to lytron, antilytron, lytroun, and lytrosis, but also to agorazein and exagorazein. Here is a point of contact with hilasmos, for the lytron paid in this apolytrosis is identical with the prosphora (G4376) or thysia (G2378) that results in the hilasmos. Apolytrosis also is related to all of the statements in Scripture that speak of sin as slavery, of sinners as slaves (Joh 8:34; Rom 6:17; Rom 6:20; 2Pe 2:19), and of deliverance from sin as freedom from or as cessation of bondage (Joh 8:33; Joh 8:36; Rom 8:21; Gal 5:1).
Katallage occurs four times in the New Testament but only once in the Septuagint and once in the Apocrypha. On one of these occasions (Isa 9:5), katallage simply means “exchange”; on the other (2Ma 5:20) it is used in the New Testament sense of being opposed to the wrath of God and refers to God’s reconciliation and favor toward his people. It is clear that synallage, synallassein, diallage, and diallassein are more usual in earlier and in classical Greek. Nevertheless, the grammarians were wrong who denounced katallage and katalassein (G2644) as words that were avoided by writers who strove for purity. No one should be ashamed of words that were used by Aeschylus, Xenophon, and Plato.
There are two aspects to the Christian use of katallage. First, katallage refers to the reconciliation “by which God has reconciled himself to us.” God laid aside his holy anger against our sins and received us into his favor by means of the reconciliation that was accomplished once for all by Christ on the cross. Katallage is used this way in 2Co 5:18-19 and Rom 5:10, where katallassesthai is a pure passive: “We are received into grace by him with whom we had been in wrath.” Second and subordinately, katallage refers to the reconciliation “by which we are reconciled to God,” the daily deposition of the enmity of the old man toward God under the operation of the Holy Spirit. This passive sense of katallassesthai appears in 2Co 5:20 (cf. 1Co 7:11). All attempts to substitute the secondary for the primary meaning of katallage are based on a foregone determination to deny the reality of God’s anger against the sinner, not on unprejudiced exegesis. Katallage is related to all the language of Scripture that describes sin as a state of enmity (echthra, G2189) with God (Rom 8:7; Eph 2:15; Jam 4:4) and sinners as God’s enemies who are alienated from him (Rom 5:10; Col 1:21), that depicts Christ on the cross as the peace and as the maker of peace between God and man (Eph 2:14; Col 1:20), and with all invitations such as: “be reconciled to God” (2Co 5:20).
The exact relationship between katallage and hilasmos is somewhat confused for the English reader, because the word atonement, which the Authorized translators used once to translate katallage (Rom 5:11), has slowly changed in meaning. If a new translation were to be made, “atonement” would plainly be a better translation of hilasmos, which refers to propitiation. The central aspect of hilasmos is found in atonement, as we currently use this word, though this was not always the case. When our Authorized Version was made, atonement referred to reconciliation or the making up of a previous enmity. All of its uses in our early literature justify the etymology (which now is sometimes called into question) that “atonement” is “at-one-meet” and therefore equivalent to “reconciliation.” Consequently “atonement” was then (though not now) the correct translation of katallage.
Hilasmos is used twice in the First Epistle of John (1Jn 2:2; 1Jn 4:10) but nowhere else in the New Testament.1 am inclined to think that the excellent word propitiation, which was used by our Authorized translators, did not exist in the English language when the earlier Reformed versions were made. The versions of Tyndale, Geneva, and Cranmer have “to make agreement” instead of “to be the propitiation” in 1Jn 2:2 and “he that obtaineth grace” in 1Jn 4:10. Hilasterion (G2435) is also translated by “propitiation” (Rom 3:25), though I think that is incorrect. Other erroneous translations translate hi-lasterion as “the obtainer of mercy” (Cranmer) and “a pacification” (Geneva). The Rheims Version was the first to use “propitiation”; the Latin tendencies of this translation caused it to transfer this word from the Vulgate. Hilasmos is not used frequently in the Septuagint, though in some passages (Num 5:8; Eze 44:27; Ezekiel 44 :2Ma 3:33) it was being prepared for its more solemn use in the New Testament. Hilasmos is related to the Greek hileos and hilaskesthai and to the Latin iram avertere (to avert anger) and ex irato mitem reddere (to render mild from angered). Hesychius correctly, though inadequately, equated hilasmos (cf. Psa 130:7; Dan 9:9) with the following synonyms: eumeneia, synchoresis diallage, katallage, and praotes (G4236). I say “inadequately” because none of the words that Hesychius offered as equivalents contain the essential notion of hilasmos and hilaskesthai:the eumeneia (goodwill) has been gained by means of some offering or other means of appeasing. Hilasmos is more comprehensive than hilastes, the word Grotius proposed as its equivalent. Not only does Christ propitiate, as hilastes (propitiator) would indicate, but he both propitiates and is himself the propitiation. In the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in offering himself he is both archiereus (G749) and thysia or prosphora The two functions of priest and sacrifice (which were of necessity divided in the typical sacrifices of the law) met and were united in him, who was the sin-offering by and through whom the just anger of God against our sins was appeased. Without compromising his righteousness, God was enabled to show himself propitious to us once more. When used of Christ, hilasmos declares all of this. According to Cocceius: “Hilasmos is the death, accomplished for sanctification before God, of the bondsman who is willing to present an offering for sins and thus to remove condemnation.”
Hilasmos is related to a larger group of words and images than either of the preceding terms. This group includes the words that set forth the benefits of Christ’s death as a propitiation of God, as well as those that speak of him as a sacrifice or an offering (1Co 5:7; Eph 5:2; Heb 10:14), as the Lamb of God (Joh 1:29; Joh 1:36; 1Pe 1:19), and as the Lamb who was slain (Rev 5:6; Rev 5:8). A little more remote but still related are all of those words that describe Christ as washing us in his blood (Rev 1:5). In comparison with katallage, hilasmos is the deeper word and closer to the heart of the matter. If we had only katallage and the group of words and images that cluster around it to explain the benefits of Christ’s death, they would show that we were enemies and by that death were made friends. But katallage does not explain how we were made friends. It does not necessarily imply satisfaction, propitiation, the Mediator, the High Priestall of which are found in hilasmos. I conclude this discussion with Bengel’s excellent note on Rom 3:24 :
Hilasmos (expiation or propitiation) and apolytrosis (redemption) have fundamentally a single benefitnamely, the restitution of a lost sinner. It is apolytrosis in reference to an enemy, and katallage in respect to God. And here these terms, hilasmos and katallage, again differ. Hilasmos (propitiation) removes an offense against God; katallage (reconciliation) has two fronts and removes (a) God’s displeasure toward us (2Co 5:19) and (b) our alienation from God (2Co 5:20).
Fuente: Synonyms of the New Testament
Redemption
denotes our recovery from sin and death by the obedience and sacrifice of Christ, who, on this account, is called the Redeemer. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Rom 3:24. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, Gal 3:13. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace, Eph 1:7. Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot,
1Pe 1:18-19. And ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price, 1Co 6:19-20.
By redemption, those who deny the atonement made by Christ wish to understand deliverance merely, regarding only the effect, and studiously putting out of sight the cause from which it flows. But the very terms used in the above cited passages, to redeem, and to be bought with a price, will each be found to refute this notion of a gratuitous deliverance, whether from sin or punishment, or both. Our English word, to redeem, literally means to buy back; and , to redeem, and , redemption, are, both in Greek writers and in the New Testament, used for the act of setting free a captive, by paying , a ransom or redemption price. But, as Grotius has fully shown, by reference to the use of the words both in sacred and profane writers, redemption signifies not merely the liberation of captives, but deliverance from exile, death, and every other evil from which we may be freed; and signifies every thing which satisfies another, so as to effect this deliverance. The nature of this redemption or purchased deliverance, (for it is not gratuitous liberation, as will presently appear,) is, therefore, to be ascertained by the circumstances of those who are the subjects of it. The subjects in the case before us are sinful men. They are under guilt, under the curse of the law, the servants of sin, under the power and dominion of the devil, and taken captive by him at his will, liable to the death of the body and to eternal punishment. To the whole of this case, the redemption, the purchased deliverance of man, as proclaimed in the Gospel, applies itself. Hence, in the above cited and other passages, it is said, We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in opposition to guilt; redemption from the curse of the law; deliverance from sin, that we should be set free from sin; deliverance from the power of Satan; from death, by a resurrection; and from future wrath, by the gift of eternal life. Throughout the whole of this glorious doctrine of our redemption from these tremendous evils there is, however, in the New Testament, a constant reference to the , the redemption price, which is as constantly declared to be the death of Christ, which he endured in our stead, The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many, Mat 20:28. Who gave himself a ransom for all, 1Ti 2:6. In whom we have redemption through his blood,
Eph 1:7. Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, 1Pe 1:18-19. That deliverance of man from sin, misery, and all other penal evils of his transgression, which constitutes our redemption by Christ, is not, therefore, a gratuitous deliverance, granted without a consideration, as an act of mere prerogative; the ransom, the redemption price, was exacted and paid; one thing was given for another, the precious blood of Christ for captive and condemned men. Of the same import are those passages which represent us as having been bought, or purchased by Christ. St. Peter speaks of those who denied the Lord , that bought them; and St. Paul, in the passage above cited, says, Ye are bought with a price, ; which price is expressly said by St.
John to be the blood of Christ: Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God (, hast purchased us) by thy blood, Rev 5:9.