Ix. Conclusion
VIII. THE USE OF περ
πooυ
µα
There is one New Testament passage where this verb is used with reference to the atonement, namely Paul’s speech to the elders at Miletus during the course of which he said to them: ’Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood’ (Acts 20: 28). The verb gives a thought allied to those of the passages we have considered in the earlier sections, but with an emphasis of its own.
περπoέω really means, ‘to make to remain over’, hence ‘to keep safe, to preserve’. In the middle it signifies, ‘to keep or save for oneself’, and thus, ‘to acquire, gain possession of’. In the LXX it has the meaning ‘to save, preserve alive, let live’ more often than any other (cf. Lk. 17: 33), but there are a number of passages where ‘to acquire’ is clearly required (e.g. Gn. 31: 18; 36: 6; Je. 48: 36; etc.). K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury translate the verb in Paul’s speech by ‘rescued’,115 taking the former meaning, but this seems to be a misunderstanding of the passage. The thought that man needs only ‘saving alive’ is not a New Testament idea. On the contrary, Scripture consistently thinks of him as completely lost until he is brought out of his sinful condition by the action of Christ. Some such sense as ‘purchased’ (Moffatt) or ‘obtained’ (RSV) is demanded by the context. The sense then is that the Church was acquired by God at a price, namely δὰ τoυ αἴματoς τoυ ἰδίου. Whether we adopt the suggestion of Lake and Cadbury and translate, ‘by the blood of his Own’, or retain with RV, ‘with his own blood’, the reference is clearly to the action of Christ in dying for man’s redemption.
πoέω really means, ‘to make to remain over’, hence ‘to keep safe, to preserve’. In the middle it signifies, ‘to keep or save for oneself’, and thus, ‘to acquire, gain possession of’. In the LXX it has the meaning ‘to save, preserve alive, let live’ more often than any other (cf. Lk. 17: 33), but there are a number of passages where ‘to acquire’ is clearly required (e.g. Gn. 31: 18; 36: 6; Je. 48: 36; etc.). K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury translate the verb in Paul’s speech by ‘rescued’,115 taking the former meaning, but this seems to be a misunderstanding of the passage. The thought that man needs only ‘saving alive’ is not a New Testament idea. On the contrary, Scripture consistently thinks of him as completely lost until he is brought out of his sinful condition by the action of Christ. Some such sense as ‘purchased’ (Moffatt) or ‘obtained’ (RSV) is demanded by the context. The sense then is that the Church was acquired by God at a price, namely δὰ τoυ αἴματoς τoυ ἰδίου. Whether we adopt the suggestion of Lake and Cadbury and translate, ‘by the blood of his Own’, or retain with RV, ‘with his own blood’, the reference is clearly to the action of Christ in dying for man’s redemption.This verb seems to have about it a flavour of personal possession. Thus deacons may acquire a ‘good standing’ for themselves as their very own possession (I Tim. 3: 13), while the corresponding noun περποήσς seems to give much the same idea in I Peter 2: 9. This passage quotes Exodus 19: 5, and περποήσς represents the Hebrew segullâh, ‘possession, property’. If it is legitimate to assume that this idea is present in Acts 20: 28, we get the thought of the Church as being acquired by God to be a possession peculiarly His own, His treasured possession.116
ποήσς seems to give much the same idea in I Peter 2: 9. This passage quotes Exodus 19: 5, and περποήσς represents the Hebrew segullâh, ‘possession, property’. If it is legitimate to assume that this idea is present in Acts 20: 28, we get the thought of the Church as being acquired by God to be a possession peculiarly His own, His treasured possession.116Whether we can say that this is to be deduced from the passage or not, it is yet clear that it bears witness to the thought of the Church being acquired at the price of the blood of Christ. Once again we have the thought of the price paid; the shedding of blood takes place instead of the loss of the sinners.
IX. CONCLUSION
From the foregoing examination then we see that where the redemption category is employed there are three aspects of the process of atonement especially in view.
a. The state of sin out of which man is to be redeemed
This is likened to a slavery, a captivity which man cannot himself break, so that redemption represents the intervention of an outside Person who pays the price which man cannot pay. The Bible sometimes speaks of this slavery in set terms (e.g. Jn. 8: 34; Rom. 7:14), but more often assumes it. It is a basic tenet of biblical theology that man is completely unable to grapple with the position created by the fact of his sin, and the redemption passages must be interpreted in this context.
b. The price which is paid
This has been too much neglected by many exegetes who have tended to see in the redemption words no more than another way of saying ‘deliverance’. But our study has shown that this is erroneous, for both inside and outside the New Testament the payment of price is a necessary component of the redemption idea. When the New Testament speaks of redemption, then, unless our linguistics are at fault, it means that Christ has paid the price of our redemption. To the extent that the price paid must be adequate for the purchase in question this indicates an equivalence, a substitution.
Sometimes, where redemption is conjoined with some other expression like ‘redeemed from the curse’, the thought goes further. In the case of this particular expression it does seem as though Paul is saying that Christ bore what we should have borne, that He is our Substitute. We have noted that many scholars subscribe to this interpretation, and their agreement is made the more impressive in that many who feel that this is a mistaken way of viewing the atonement yet recognize that this is the thought of the apostle. He found it necessary to bring in many categories to interpret what was done on Calvary, and it would seem impossible to escape the conclusion that substitution was one of them. The place and nature of the substitution may require careful definition, but that substitution is part of St. Paul’s thought seems beyond reasonable doubt. And in view of such passages as the ransom saying of Mark 10: 45 we must hold that this substitutionary idea is not peculiar to St. Paul.