Saviour
Saviour
See Salvation; Christ, Christology.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
SAVIOUR
A person who delivers from danger and misery. Thus Jesus Christ is called the Saviour, as he delivers us from the greatest evils, and brings us into the possession of the greatest good.
See JESUS CHRIST, LIBERTY, PROPITIATION, REDEMPTION. Order of St. Saviour, a religious order of the Romish church, founded by St. Bridget, about the year 1345; and so called from its being pretended that our Saviour himself declared its constitution and rules to the foundress.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Saviour
A title of Our Lord, arising from the fact that He sacrificed His life to atone for the sins of men and so won for sinful men grace and access to God. Only the virtue of His satisfaction for men’s offenses can we obtain salvation: “Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4)
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Saviour
one who saves from any form or degree of evil. In its highest sense the word indicates the relation sustained by our Lord to his redeemed ones, he is their Saviour. The great message of the gospel is about salvation and the Saviour. It is the “gospel of salvation.” Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ secures to the sinner a personal interest in the work of redemption. Salvation is redemption made effectual to the individual by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Saviour
moshia’, Greek soter. Salvation from all kinds of danger and evil, bodily, spiritual, temporal, and eternal (Mat 1:21; Eph 5:23; Phi 3:20-21), including also the idea restorer and preserver, giver of positive life and blessedness, as well as saviour from evil (Isa 26:1; 2Sa 8:6; Isa 60:18; Isa 61:10; Psa 118:25), deliverer, as the judges were saviours (margin Jdg 3:9; Jdg 3:15; Neh 9:27; Jeroboam II, 2Ki 13:5; Oba 1:21). (See SALVATION; HOSANNA; REDEEMER.) Isaiah, Joshua or Jeshua, Jesus, Hoshea, Hosea, are various forms of the is associated with the idea, and the term Redeemer (goel) implies how God can be just and at the same time a saviour of mall (Isa 43:3; Isa 43:11; Isa 45:15; Isa 45:21-24; Isa 45:25; Isa 41:14; Isa 49:26; Isa 9:16-17; Zec 9:9; Hos 1:7).
Man cannot save himself temporally or spiritually; Jehovah alone can save (Job 40:14; Psa 33:16; Psa 44:3; Psa 44:7; Hos 13:4; Hos 13:10). The temporal saviour is the predominant idea in the Old Testament; the spiritual and eternal saviour of the whole man in the New Testament Israel’ s saviour, national and spiritual, finally (Isa 62:11; Rom 11:25-26). Salvation is secured in title to believers already by Christ’s purchase with His blood; its final consummation shall be at His coming again; in this sense salvation has yet “to be revealed” (1Pe 1:5; Heb 9:28; Rom 5:10). Salvation negatively delivers us from three things: (1) the penalty, (2) the power, (3) the presence of sin. Positively it includes the inheritance of glory, bliss, and life eternal in and with God our Saviour.
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
Saviour
SAVIOUR.Saviour, like to save and salvation, is a word of frequent occurrence in the OT.
It occurs mostly in the form of the ptcpl. Hiph. of = . For the specific meaning of to save in distinction from other cognate Heb. verbs, cf. art. Salvation. Most commonly God is called the Saviour of Israel or individuals. A standing combination is God the Saviour often with a possessive genitive (1Ch 16:35, Psa 24:5; Psa 27:1; Psa 27:9; Psa 62:2; Psa 62:6; Psa 65:5; Psa 79:9; Psa 95:1, Isa 12:2; Isa 17:10, Mic 7:7, Hab 3:18). To be a Saviour is Gods exclusive prerogative (Psa 60:11; Psa 108:12, Isa 43:11; Isa 45:22). As instruments of God, however, human deliverers likewise receive the title (Jdg 3:9; Jdg 3:15, Neh 9:27). There is no passage in the OT where the Messiah is called Saviour. Wherever the Messiah is connected with the idea of salvation, He is not the subject but the object of it (Psa 28:8; Psa 144:10, Zec 9:9). This is different in Apocryphal and Pseud-epigraphical literature, for here it is not merely declared that in the name of the Son of Man the people are saved, and that He is the Goel of their life (En 48:7), or that the righteous in connexion with Him shall be satisfied with salvation (4 Ezr 8:39), but also that Christus liberabit creaturam (4 Ezr 12:34, 13:26), and that from Judah and Levi the Lord will raise a Saviour for Israel (Test. Gad 8). God, however, here also is more frequently called Saviour ( , Ps-Sol 16:7; , Bar 4:22; , 3Ma 6:29; 3Ma 7:16). Used of God, is synonymous with such terms as , , (En 48:7, 1Ma 4:11, 3Ma 7:23).
1. In the Gospels occurs but three timesLuk 1:47; Luk 2:11 and Joh 4:42. In the Song of Mary, the words My spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour are a reproduction of the common OT usage. In Luk 2:11 is not a formal title, but a descriptive designation of the Messiah, a Saviour who is Christ the Lord. But the word evidently has a deeper meaning to the angels than the noun and the participle have to Zacharias in Luk 1:71; Luk 1:74; for in the two latter passages the conception moves entirely within the OT limits. The doxology of Luk 2:14 associates Jesus saving work with the production of peace on earth among mankind as the objects of Gods good pleasure. Here undoubtedly covers the Lords Messianic work in the most universalistic sense. And it will be noticed that is synonymous with , so that the reference cannot be confined to our Lords earthly ministry, but extends to His activity as the glorified Messiah. As peace and good pleasure indicate, not the giving of life but the bestowal of reconciliation with God stands in the foreground (for the connexion between and , cf. Ps-Sol 8:39). In Joh 4:42 receives its import from the rich and pregnant meaning and acquire in the discourses of the Fourth Gospel. As Jesus had represented Himself to the woman not as a mere revealer (Joh 4:19; Joh 4:26), but as the giver of living water, and water unto eternal life, (Joh 4:10; Joh 4:14), so the Samaritans, in acknowledging Him as , prove to have attained a deeper conception of Messiahship than was commonly current among them, both as to the nature and extent of the Messiahs calling (cf., however, for , 4 Ezr 13:26).
2. The fact has not escaped observation, that St. Luke, who alone of the Synoptists introduces into his record the word , also employs it twice in Acts, where it occurs once in a speech of St. Peter (Act 5:31), and once in a speech of St. Paul (Act 13:23). In Act 5:31 we have the combination : Christ was made both by the Resurrection and by the Ascension. is found also in Act 3:15, another speech of St. Peter, and is here combined with ; the Jews asked for a murderer to be granted them and killed the Prince of Life, whom God raised from the dead. It is plain that the meaning of in Act 5:31 is determined by that of , and Act 3:15 proves that has specifically to do with Jesus life-giving power, whence also in both passages the Resurrection is emphasized. Besides Lk., Hebrews is the only NT writing which employs (Act 2:10, Act 12:2). The former of these two passages confirms the close connexion already found between and , for it calls Jesus ; in the other passage He is called , the leader and perfecter of faith. (For a thorough discussion of , cf. Bleek, Der Brief a.d. Hebrer, ii. pp. 301303). The use of the word in combination with is interesting, because both are employed in the LXX Septuagint of the judges sent by God to deliver Israel (Jdg 3:9-15; Jdg 11:6; Jdg 11:11; Jdg 12:3 [ = , = ]). In Hebrews, however, the rendering captain, which brings out the idea of military leadership, and the general rendering author, are inadequate; the word plainly has the connotation of model, example, forerunner, the leader first experiencing in Himself and receiving in Himself that to which he leads others. Thus Jesus is in Heb 2:10, because He Himself is conducted to glory by God, and in His attainment to glory draws with Him all the other sons of God. In Heb 12:2 Jesus career of faith is represented as exemplary for believers; by preceding in the exercise of an ideal faith He enables others to follow in the same of faith. Heb 5:9 proves that where the author does not wish to emphasize this peculiar idea of precession, but merely to express the causal relationship between His work and the salvation of believers, he uses the general term : He became author of eternal salvation. The reference to the Resurrection in both Petrine passages renders it probable that the word is here used in the same pregnant sense: Jesus is in virtue of the Resurrection a leader of life, one who has Himself attained unto life, and now makes others partakers of the same. As the murderer in Act 3:14 inflicts death, so the bestows life. , then, is identical with so far as the impartation of life is concerned, but leaves the exemplification of the life-content of the in Jesus own Person unexpressed. In the speech of St. Paul (Act 13:23) the use of clearly attaches itself to the LXX Septuagint of the Book of Judges, if the reading of the Textus Receptus be followed, for this is the verb by which the LXX Septuagint in Jdg 3:9; Jdg 3:15 renders the Heb. . If, on the other hand, we read with WH [Note: H Westcott and Horts text.] , the more immediate reference seems to be to Zec 3:8; but even then the word itself points back to the Book of Judges.
3. In St. Pauls writings, apart from the Pastoral Epistles, is found only twiceEph 5:23 and Php 3:20. The interpretation of the former passage is much disputed. The husbands relation as head to the wife and Christs relation as Head to the Church are compared, and in this connexion Christ is called (of the Church). This last statement seems to imply that Christs headship over the Church is based on His being the Saviour of the Church-body. The question is whether this must be understood in the sense which will likewise be applicable to the relation between husband and wife. In the ordinary sense the husband could hardly be called the saviour of the wifes body. But Wagner (ZNTW [Note: NTW Zeitschrift fr die Neutest. Wissen. schaft.] vi. [1905] p. 220) has called attention to a passage in Clement (Paed. ii. 5) where it is stated that the Creator provides man with meat and drink , for the sake of keeping alive. Applying this to our passage, he obtains the very congruous sense: As the husband is of the wife, by supplying the sustenance of her physical life, so Christ is of the Church, inasmuch as He endows her with eternal life; and for this reason both hold the position of head. This secures for the sense of endowing with eternal life. The peculiarity of the passage, thus understood, would lie in this, that the ordinary religious use of is illustrated by analogy with a natural use of the verb which seems to be without precedent in earlier Biblical Greek. In Php 3:20 the word has a specific eschatological reference: Christ is , because at the resurrection He will transform the body of believers into the likeness of His own glorious body. therefore here also is equivalent to the bestowal of life.
4. With sudden and remarkable frequency emerges in the Pastoral Epistles (10 times) and in 2 Peter (5 times). In the Pastorals there is further the peculiarity that the name is applied to both God and Christ: to God, in 1Ti 1:1; 1Ti 2:3; 1Ti 4:10, Tit 1:3; Tit 2:10; Tit 3:4; to Christ, in 2Ti 1:10, Tit 1:4; Tit 2:13; Tit 3:6. In 2 Peter the reference is always to Christ. In Jude also God is once called our Saviour through Jesus Christ (v. 25). The designation of God as Saviour can appear strange only on the basis of our established custom to reserve this title for Christ; on the basis of the OT it was a perfectly natural usage, for here always God, never the Messiah, is called , . And in the NT itself the act of saving is, where a subject is indicated, as naturally ascribed to God as to Christ (comparatively few passages reflect on the subject). Except perhaps for the one passage, 1Ti 4:10, it cannot be said that the meaning of in the Pastorals and 2 Peter differs from its ordinary import, or that of in the NT elsewhere. Christ is Saviour, because He abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2Ti 1:10); as Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ has an eternal Kingdom into which believers receive entrance (2Pe 1:11). He is called the great God and Saviour, in so far as believers look for the blessed hope and appearing of His glory (Tit 2:13). The hope of eternal life comes from God our Saviour (Tit 1:2; Tit 2:14). Eschatological also is the reference in the commandment of the Lord and Saviour (2Pe 3:2). In Tit 2:10 the thought is implied that God is Saviour in the ethical sphere, whence the doctrine of God our Saviour becomes an incentive to holy living. But peculiar is 1Ti 4:10 where God is called the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe. Wagner proposes to apply here the same sense given to in Eph 5:23 : God is Saviour of all men, inasmuch as He supplies them with natural life; Saviour especially of believers, because He supplies these with the higher life of the Spirit (l.c. p. 222, where Philo [de Mundi Opif. 60: God = ] is quoted). This might seem to be favoured by 1Ti 6:13 God who keepeth all things alive, or who giveth life to all things (cf. the alternative reading for in Luk 17:33). But it is less in keeping with Tit 2:11 where a similar universalism of Gods is affirmed, and yet this is a matter of redemption, not of nature. Wagner is quite correct, however, in urging against von Soden that God of all men cannot mean God is willing to be of all men; and against B. Weiss, that it cannot mean God has made salvation objectively possible for all men, while subjectively He realizes it in believers only. The solution of the difficulty must be sought elsewhere, viz. in connexion with the pronounced universalism of the Pastoral Epistles in general. The emphasis and frequency with which this principle is brought forward render it probable that something specific in the historical situation to which the Pastorals address themselves lies at its basis, and at the basis also of the frequency with which the words , , , are employed. There is absolutely no reason to suspect the writer of any intention to weaken or neutralize the doctrine of predestination. Besides involving denial of the Pauline origin of the Epistles, this would leave unexplained why, in other passages, the principle of predestination is enunciated with all desirable distinctness. The only plausible view is that the passages under review contain a warning against the dualistic trend of that incipient Gnosticism to whose early presence in the Apostolic period the Epistles of the First Captivity also bear witness. In a twofold sense it might become of importance to vindicate, over against this theory, the universalism of saving grace: on the one hand, in so far as Gnosticism on principle excluded from salvation those who lacked the pneumatic character; and, on the other hand, in so far as those belonging to the pneumatici might be considered to carry the power of salvation by nature in themselves. In other words, it might become necessary to emphasize that God saves all men, not merely one class of men, and that no man is by his subjective condition either sunk beneath the possibility or raised above the need of salvation. Perhaps also the emphasis upon the fact that God as well as Christ is Saviour, though perfectly natural from the OT point of view, is specially directed against a system which tended to separate between the Creator-God of the old dispensation and the Saviour-God, Christ, of the new. The recent investigations of Friedlnder have shown that there existed long before the 2nd cent. of our era a Jewish type of Gnosticism, so that it can no longer be asserted that an anti-Gnostic polemic of this type per se militates against the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.
In recent times attempts have been made to explain the rise and development of the NT conception of and from extra-Biblical sources. Anrich (Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christenthum, 1894) pointed out how in the cult of the Mysteries the promise of , in the sense of immortality, plays a large role. Similarly Wobbermin (Religionsgeschichtliche Studien, 1896), who asserts that especially in the cult of the subterranean gods the word was common as a name for the Deity. In two articles published in the Christliche Welt for 1899 and 1900, entitled Als die Zeit erfllt war and Der Heiland, Harnack calls attention to certain inscriptions discovered in Asia Minor, at Priene and Halicarnassus, dating probably from the year b.c. 9, in which the Emperor Augustus is invested with Divine predicates, and called , the one who has been filled for the good of mankind with gifts, a god whose birthday has brought to the world the evangels connected with his person, the Zeus of the fatherland and the of the human race. Harnack assumes that St. Luke in calling Jesus was influenced by these and similar pagan forms of expression current in the cult of the Emperors, and that the same influence may be seen at work in the frequency with which the Pastoral Epistles and 2 Peter employ the title. He further suggests that St. Paul purposely avoided its use, because of the eudaemonistic, political flavour it had acquired from these pagan associations. St. Luke, in the Gospel of the Infancy, the writer of the Pastorals, the writer of 2 Peter, and the Fourth Evangelist, meant to represent Christ as the true in whom lay the reality of what paganism falsely ascribed to its rulers, dead or living.Soltau (Die Geburtsgeschichte Jesu Christi, 1902) reaches the same conclusions, independently of Harnack, on the basis of the same and other classical material, and also asserts derivation of the story of the virgin birth from the same pagan circle of ideas.Wendland (ZNTW [Note: NTW Zeitschrift fr die Neutest. Wissen. schaft.] v. [1904], p. 335 ff.) investigates the use of in antiquity with reference to both gods and deified mena usage dating back from before the production of the LXX Septuagint . Up to the time of Alexander the Great, was not applied to men, because it was still felt to be a cult-name reserved for the gods. The first trace of its application to men appears in Thucydides, where it is given to Brasidas, and in Polybins, where Philip of Macedon is called . After that, the custom became quite common among the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae: first the dead, then also the living rulers were honoured with this title. It was also combined with the Oriental idea of the incarnation of the godhead, whence such a term as was applied to rulers. A feast celebrated on the day of such a was called . From the Greek dynasties the custom passed over to the representatives of the Roman power, especially to the Emperors. Examples are adduced from Cicero, whose rhetorical exaggerations in speaking of great Romans are believed to have sprung from his knowledge of the Oriental forms of speech. Even a philosopher like Epicurus could be called after a semi-Divine fashion, and that in his lifetime. Finally, in connexion with the recent trend towards explaining Biblical conceptions from Babylonian sources, it has been proposed to find in the NT idea of an embodiment of the Oriental myth of a Saviour-King (Erlser-Knig); cf. A. Jeremias, Babylonisches im NT (1905), pp. 2746.
It is not proposed here to subject the above hypotheses to an exhaustive criticism. To some extent the later forms have effectually criticised the earlier ones. Thus Wendland disposes of much in Anrich, Wobhermin, and Soltau. Wagner (ZNTW [Note: NTW Zeitschrift fr die Neutest. Wissen. schaft.] vi. [1905]) skilfully attacks the position of Wendland. A few remarks must here suffice. The derivation of the whole idea of and from the Oriental expectation of the Saviour-King is impossible, because OT prophecy not at all, and Jewish theology very rarely, applies the name , , to the Messiah, and yet in eschatological Messianism it would be natural to look first of all for the evidence of such Oriental importation. As to the alleged connexion between the Greek mysteries and Christianity, it should be observed that the cult of the mysteries flourished in the 2nd cent. of the Christian era, and that none of the authorities quoted by Anrich in support of his view dates further back than this. The Asian inscriptions, of which Harnack and Soltau make so much, offer at the best some striking analogies to the NT mode of representation; but a real literary dependence cannot be made out, as even Wendland admits. In his second article, Der Heiland, Harnack expresses himself much more guardedly than in the first, after this fashion: On the Jewish and on the Grecian line numerous religious conceptions existed, which covered each other and so simply could pass over into each other. in the cult of the Emperors has quite a different sense from what it has in the NT; in Hellenism it never means the one who translates from death into life. It is also exceedingly doubtful whether St. Paul consciously and purposely avoids the use of with reference to Christ, because of its pagan, idolatrous associations. Why did not St. Paul avoid for the same reasons? Why not and themselves as well as ? A far more simple explanation is that the non-use of in the OT with reference to the Messiah continued to exert its influence in the usage of St. Paul. An allusion to the Emperor-cult and the rle played in it by in Php 3:20 is not impossible, for in the words our is in heaven the pronoun is emphatic. Where, apart from St. Paul, the conception of is first joined to the Person of Christ, this is done in dependence on the Hebrew meaning of the name Jesus, i.e. in dependence on the OT (Mat 1:21). A priori there would be no objection to the hypothesis that in Luke and the Pastoral Epistles and 2 Peter and the Fourth Gospel there is a conscious appropriation of, and at the same time a protest against, the pagan use of the word, and that the sudden frequency of its occurrence in the Pastorals and 2 Peter is to be explained from this. As a matter of fact, however, this involves, according to Harnack, the unhistorical character of at least the present form of the Magnificat and of the message of the angels to the shepherds (Luk 1:47; Luk 2:11); further, the unhistorical character of at least the present form of the speeches of St. Peter and St. Paul (Act 5:31; Act 13:23); and, finally, the unhistorical character of at least the form of the discourse of our Lord in Joh 4:42. It has been shown above, that the Lukan record can be readily explained from the historical situation which it reports. For Joh 4:42 (and 1Jn 4:14) , a comparison with 4 Ezr 13:26, where the same phrase occurs, proves that even here we do not necessarily move in Greek trains of thought, but are still in the Jewish sphere. All that remains of Wendlands contention is, that possibly in the Pastoral Epistles there is some adjustment in the use of to the manner of its handling in pagan quarters, for an apologetic purpose. But even here considerable weeding of Wendlands assertions will be necessary. Thus he brings the , which is named as the motive of the Divine act of , into connexion with the benignitas and clementia of the Roman emperors. But Eph 2:5-9 shows how all this can be readily explained without resorting to such far-fetched analogies. Similarly the of Tit 1:2 and 2Ti 1:9 is treated by Wendland as an allusion to the eternity of the Roman Emperors, which takes no account of the fact that the latter was an eternity of post- not of pre-existence. In Tit 3:7, where he would find the same analogy, the eternity is not that of the , but of believers. Most, perhaps, could be said in favour of the Hellenistic association of such terms as , , and in their joint use with (cf. Wagner, p. 232). But, taken as a whole, is shown to be a thoroughly OT conception by its dependence on and , about whose OT provenience there can be no reasonable doubt.
See also art. Salvation, and the Literature there cited.
Geerhardus Vos.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Saviour
SAVIOUR.See Salvation.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Saviour
The peculiar name and character of our Lord Jesus Christ, including most evidently both natures, God and man, and thereby forming one Christ. Had he not been God, how should he have been able to save, for who less than God can save? And had he not been man, there would not have been a suitability in the Lord Jesus Christ for such an office, justice so requiring that the same nature which sinned, and broke the divine law, should atone and make ample restoration. So that in the character of the Saviour we behold Christ, and Christ alone, the suited Saviour for his people. Hence we find him assuming to himself this distinction of character-“I, even I, am the Lord, and beside me there is no Saviour.” (Isa 43:11. So again, Isa 44:21-22) “There is no God else beside me, a just God, and a Saviour; there is none beside me, Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is none else.”
In this view of the Lord Jesus Christ as a Saviour, it is blessed to behold not only the ability, in perfection of character and completeness of work, in the person of the Lord Jesus, but also the authority by which he came and accomplished the glorious office of a Saviour. God the Father declared that he sent him as a Saviour and a great one, and he should deliver his people, and his name should be called Jesus: (see Isa 19:20; Mat 1:21) Hence the believer in Christ finds a just warrant for faith to rest upon, not only in the completeness of what Christ hath wrought, but also in the appointment and approbation of God the Father: so that here the preciousness of the Saviour, and the preciousness of the salvation, come home endeared to the heart.
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Saviour
savyer: (1) While that God is the deliverer of his people is the concept on which, virtually, the whole Old Testament is based (see SALVATION), yet the Hebrews seem never to have felt the need of a title for God that would sum up this aspect of His relation to man. Nearest to our word Saviour is a participial form (, mosha) from the verb , yasha (Qal not used; save in Hiphil), but even this participle is not frequently applied to God (some 13 times of which 7 are in Isa 43 through 63). (2) In the New Testament, however, the case is different, and , Soter, is used in as technical a way as is our Saviour. But the distribution of the 24 occurrences of the word is significant, for two-thirds of them are found in the later books of the New Testament – 10 in the Pastorals, 5 in 2 Peter, and one each in John, 1 John, and Jude – while the other instances are Luk 1:47; Luk 2:11; Act 5:31; Act 13:23; Eph 5:23; Phi 3:20. And there are no occurrences in Matthew, Mark, or the earlier Pauline Epistles. The data are clear enough. As might be expected, the fact that the Old Testament used no technical word for Saviour meant that neither did the earliest Christianity use any such word. Doubtless for our Lord Messiah was felt to convey the meaning. But in Greek-speaking Christianity, Christ, the translation of Messiah, soon became treated as a proper name, and a new word was needed. (3) Soter expressed the exact meaning and had already been set apart in the language of the day as a religious term, having become one of the most popular divine titles in use. Indeed, it was felt to be a most inappropriate word to apply to a human being. Cicero, for instance, arraigns Verres for using it: Soter…How much does this imply? So much that it cannot be expressed in one word in Latin (Verr. ii. 2, 63, 154). So the adoption of Soter by Christianity was most natural, the word seemed ready-made. (4) That the New Testament writers derived the word from its contemporary use is shown, besides, by its occurrence in combination with such terms as manifestation (epiphaneia, 2Ti 1:10; Tit 2:13), love toward man (philanthropa, Tit 3:4), captain (archegos, Act 5:31; compare Heb 2:10), etc. These terms are found in the Greek sources many times in exactly the same combinations with Soter. (5) In the New Testament Soter is uniformly reserved for Christ, except in Luk 1:47; Jud 1:25, and the Pastorals. In 1 Tim (Jud 1:1; Jud 1:2 :3; 4:10) it is applied only to the Father, in 2 Tim (Jud 1:10, only) it is applied to Christ, while in Titus there seems to be a deliberate alternation: of the Father in Tit 1:3; Tit 2:10; Tit 3:4; of Christ in Tit 1:4; Tit 2:13; Tit 3:6.
Literature.
P. Wendland, , Soter Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, V, 335-353, 1904; J. Weiss, Heiland, in RGG, II, 1910; H. Lietzmann, Der Weltheiland, 1909. Much detailed information is available in various parts of Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 1910.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Saviour
This title is in the O.T. applied to Jehovah. The term in itself implies that some oppression exists or some danger impends from which salvation is needed. God says, “All flesh shall know that I Jehovah am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.” Isa 49:26; Isa 60:16.
In the N.T. man is plainly declared to be lost , and the title ‘Saviour’ is applied both to God and to Christ. “The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world,” 1Jn 4:14; and the very name of Jesus conveys the thought of a Saviour. His becoming this involved His meeting vicariously the question of sin and sins, which He did on the cross. The expression occurs in Paul’s later epistles of ‘God our Saviour,’ or ‘our Saviour-God,’ indicating the attitude which God occupies towards all men. How gladly all His saints say, “To the only wise God our Saviour be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.” God is also declared to be “the Saviour of all men” in a providential sense, and men probably little know how much they are indebted to His preserving care. 1Ti 4:10. See SALVATION.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Saviour
Saviour. See Jesus Christ.