General Index
GENERAL INDEX
ABBOTT, T. K.
Abbott-Smith, G
Abelard
Allen, W. C
Althaus, P
Aquinas
Aristeas.
Arndt, W. F. & Gingrich, F. W. (AG).
Atonement
Augustine
Aulén, G.
‘Avenger of blood‘
BAILLIE, D. M.
Barr, J
Barrett, C. K.
Barth, K
Beet, Agar
Behm, J.
Bell, G. K. A
Berdyaev, N.
berîth
Bernard, J. H
Bevan, E..
Blass, F. & Debrunner, A
Blood
Sprinkling of.
Of covenant.
Of Christ
Meaning of, in O.T. in N.T.
And life
And death
Branscomb, B. H.
Bright, J.
Brown, F., Driver, S. R. & Briggs, C. A. (BDB)
Brunner, E
Buber, M
Büchsel, F.f.
Bultmann, R.
Burton, E. de W.
Bushnell, H...
CADBURY, H. J.
Calvin, J.
Camfield, F. W.
Candlish, J. S..
Carr, A..
Cave, S..
Charles, R. H.....
Cheyne, T. K.
Chrysostom.
Clement (Rom.)
Covenantf.
With Abraham.
Blood off..f.
Circumcision
And forgiveness
In Judaismf.
Legal.
The newf.f.
On Sinai.
And substitution
Cowley, A..
Cranfield, C. E. B.
Cranmer, T.
Crawford, T. J.
DALE, R. W
Dalman, G
dām.
Dana, H. E. & Mantey, J. R..
Danby, H.
Davidson, A. B..
Davies, W. D..
Debrunner, A
Deissmann, G. A.
Delitzsch, F
Denney, J
Dillistone, F. W
Diodorus.
Dodd, C. H
Driver, S. R
Driver, S. R. & Gray, G. B.
Duncan, G. S...
EICHRODT, W.
Elmslie, W. A. L.
Enoch
Erasmus
Expiation.
FAITH
Fat
Farrer, A. M.
Ferguson, W. D.
Fichtner.J.
Filson, F. V
Foakes Jackson, F. J
Foerster, W
Forsyth, P. T
Franks, R. S.
Fuller, R. H
GARVIE, A. E
Gehman, H. S.
Gibson, E. C. S
Gifford, E. H
g’l.
Glasson, T. F.
Godet, F
Goodspeed, E. J.
Goold, W. H.
Goudge, H. L.
Gould, E. P.
Gray, G. B.
Grenfell, B. P. & Hunt, A. S.
Griffith, G. O.
Guilt offering
Guthrie, W. K. C.
HALLIDAY, W. F.
Hatch, E. & Redpath, H. A. (HR).
Hengel, van
Herford, R. T.
Herklots, H. G. G.
Hermas
Herrmann, J.
Hicks, E. L..
Hicks, F. C. N.
Higgins, A. J. B
Hodge, C
Hodgson, L.
Hofmann, J. C. K. von.
Hort, F. J. A.
Hoskyns, E. C.
Howard, W. F
Hubert, H. & Mauss, M
Hughes, H. M
Hughes, T. H.
Hunt, A. S.
Hunter, A. M
IDOLATRY
Immortality
JAMES, E. O.
Jeremias, A
Jeremias, J.
Johnson, S. E.
Josephus
Judaism, redemption in
Judgment and Law in O.T.
Justification.
And faith, in Judaism in O.T.
And sanctification
KAMENIATES, J.
Kautsch, E
Kennedy, H. A. A..
Kinsman.
kipper
Klausner, J.
Knox, E. A
Köhler, L..
König, E..
kõpher
Kraetzschmar, R.
LAKE, K. & CADBURY, H. J.
‘Lamb of God’
Lambert, J. C.
Langdon, S. H.
Law
And judgment, in O.T.
Of God.
Leenhardt, F. J
Levertoff, P. P
Levy.
Liddell, H. G. & Scott, R. (LS)
Liddon, H. P
Lidgett, J. S.
Lightfoot, J. B
Lods, A
Loisy, A
Love of God
Lucian.
MACAULAY, A. B
Mackintosh, R.
McNeile, A. H.
Maltby, W. R.
Manson, T. W.
Manson, W
Mantey, J. R.
Manumission, sacral
Mascall, E. L.
Masure, E.
Mati’-ilu
Mayser, E.
Mediation
Melanchthon
Menander.
Mendenhall, G. E.
Men Tyrannus.
Micklem, N.
Midrash.
Milligan, G
Milligan, W.
Mishnah.
Moberly, R. C.
Moffatt, J.
Montefiore, C. G.
Moore, G. F.
Morgenstein, J.
Morison, J
Moule, H. C. G
Moulton, J. H
Moulton, J. H. & Howard, W. F
Moulton, J. H. & Milligan, G. (MM)
nephesh.
Nicole, R. R..
North, C. R..
Norton, F. O.
Nygren, A.
OEPKE, A.
Oesterley, W. O. E.
Oman, J.
Orr, J
Owen, J
PASSOVER
Paterson, W. P
Paton, W. R. & Hicks, E. L
pdh
Pearson, J
Pedersen, J.
Penalty of sin.
Philo.
Plato.
Platt, F
Plummer, A
Plutarch..
Polyaenus.
Polybius.
Procksch, O
Propitiation.
Pullan, L.
Punishment, vicarious
Purvey
QUELL, G.
Quick, O. C.
RAD, G. von.
Rake, H.
Ramsay, W. M.
Ransom..
Rashdall, H.
Reconciliation
In Rabbinic writings
In N.T.
And substitution
Redemption. In Judaism
Relton, H. M.
Richardson, A
Righteousness,
Of Christ.
Of God.
Imparted..
Imputed..
Of men.
And mercy
And salvation.
Robertson, A. T
Robinson, H. W.
Robinson, J. A.
Rowley, H. H.
Ryle, J. C..
SANDAY, W. & HEADLAM, A. C.
Satisfaction.
Scapegoat
Schlatter, A
Schniewind, J
Schoeps, H. J.
Schrenk, G.
Schweitzer, W.
Scott, C. A. A.
Scott, R. B. Y.
shälôm
Simon, D. W
Simpson, J. G.
Skinner, J.
Smeaton, G.
Smith, C. R.
Smith, R. G.
Smith, W. R.
Snaith, N. H.
‘Soul-substance’
Stählin, G.
Steinleitner, F
Stewart, J. S
Stibbs, A. M.
Storr, V. F
Strachan, R. H.
Strack, H. L. & Billerbeck, P. (SB).
Substitution.
Suffering Servant
Swete, H. B.
TALMUD
Tasker, R. V. G.
Taylor, F. J.
Taylor, V.
Temple, W.
Testament
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Thayer, J. H.
Thompson, J. A
Thornton, L. S.
torah..
Toy, C. H.
Trumbull, H. C.
tsedeq
Valeton.J. P.
Vaux, R. de.
Vermes, G.
Vogel, H.
Vos, G..
WARFIELD, B. B.
Weiss, J
Westcott, B. F.
Westcott, B. F. & Hort, F. J. A. (WH).
Wolf, E.
Wrath of God.
And love
In N.T.
In O.T.
Wyclif
YEB
ZADOKITE FRAGMENT
Zahn, T.
Zimmerli, W. & Jeremias, J.
1
Cf. A. Debrunner, Griechische Wortbildungslehre (Heidelberg, 1917), pp. 176f.; J. H. Moulton and W. F. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, II (Edinburgh, 1919), PP. 368f.
2
There were also, of course, other words for the price of release, as ἄλλαγμα, ἀντάλλαγμα, τ
μή, πoνή, ἄπoνα, ζωάγρα, ἀντ
ψυχoν. On the reason for the choice of this rather than another root, cf. B. B. Warfield, ‘Its formation must be traced to the natural influence of its primitive, λύεν, dominating the mind when the idea of ransoming occupied it, and leading to the framing from it of derived vocables expressive of that idea. It “came natural” to a Greek, in other words, when he wished to say ransom, to say λύτρoν, because when he thought of ransoming he thought in terms of λύεν’ (PTR, XV, 1917, p. 207; he goes on to say that λυτρoυ
ν ‘meant and could mean nothing but to release for or by a ransom’); cf. also, ‘The only reason for the existence of this verb was to set by the side of the ambiguous λύεν (ἀπoλύεν) an unambiguous term which would convey with surety, and without aid from the context or from the general understanding ruling its use, the express sense of ransoming. We are not surprised to observe therefore that throughout the whole history of profane Greek literature λυτρoυν, λυτρoυσθα maintained this sense unbrokenly. Its one meaning is just “to ransom” ’ (op. cit., p. 208).
μή, πoνή, ἄπoνα, ζωάγρα, ἀντψυχoν. On the reason for the choice of this rather than another root, cf. B. B. Warfield, ‘Its formation must be traced to the natural influence of its primitive, λύεν, dominating the mind when the idea of ransoming occupied it, and leading to the framing from it of derived vocables expressive of that idea. It “came natural” to a Greek, in other words, when he wished to say ransom, to say λύτρoν, because when he thought of ransoming he thought in terms of λύεν’ (PTR, XV, 1917, p. 207; he goes on to say that λυτρoυν ‘meant and could mean nothing but to release for or by a ransom’); cf. also, ‘The only reason for the existence of this verb was to set by the side of the ambiguous λύεν (ἀπoλύεν) an unambiguous term which would convey with surety, and without aid from the context or from the general understanding ruling its use, the express sense of ransoming. We are not surprised to observe therefore that throughout the whole history of profane Greek literature λυτρoυν, λυτρoυσθα maintained this sense unbrokenly. Its one meaning is just “to ransom” ’ (op. cit., p. 208).3
The Oxyrhyncus Papyri, I (London, 1898), p. 105.
4
Op. cit., p. 106. The ransom is explicitly mentioned, and the same is the case elsewhere, e.g. documents 49, 722 in the same series.
5
Light from the Ancient East (London, 1927), p. 323. C. K. Barrett cites the same inscription, but takes ω
νάν, rendered by Deissmann as ‘purchase’, to mean ‘deed of sale’, i.e. the inscription itself (The New Testament Background: Selected Documents, London, 1956, pp. 52f.). This is probably how Deissmann understands it for he rejects the translation ‘purchase money’. LS give both meanings for ωνή (they do not cite a form ωνά).
νάν, rendered by Deissmann as ‘purchase’, to mean ‘deed of sale’, i.e. the inscription itself (The New Testament Background: Selected Documents, London, 1956, pp. 52f.). This is probably how Deissmann understands it for he rejects the translation ‘purchase money’. LS give both meanings for ωνή (they do not cite a form ωνά).6
Op. cit., p. 327. Similarly AG define λύτρoν as ’price of release, ransom (esp. also the ransom money for the manumission of slaves ...)’. They proceed to cite eight examples of the latter use.
7
See the evidence cited in LS (8th edn.); F. Steinleitner, Die Beicht in Zusammenhange (Leipzig, 1913), pp. 36f.; W. M. Ramsay, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, X, 1889, pp. 227f.
8
Büchsel rejects Deissmann’s approach because it does not proceed from exegesis. The only way to understand the meaning Paul attaches to a word, he says, is to look at Paul’s letters (TWNT, IV, p. 358, n.23).There is, of course, solid sense in this. Yet it is unreasonable to expect that Paul would use a word without a thought of its meaning in ordinary usage. Surely the right procedure is to find out what the word meant to his contemporaries, then to examine Paul’s writing to see whether he used it in the same way, or whether he attached a new meaning to it. Moreover Büchsel pays no attention to Deissmann’s showing that Paul makes use of quite a number of expressions common in the manumission documents, e.g. τη ελευθερά
and επ’ ελευθερ
α (Gal. 5: 1,13), the latter being a ‘formula of the records’; bought ‘with a price’ τμης (I Cor. 6:20; 7:23), etc.
ελευθερά and επ’ ελευθερα (Gal. 5: 1,13), the latter being a ‘formula of the records’; bought ‘with a price’ τμης (I Cor. 6:20; 7:23), etc.9
De Sac. 121.
10
Op. cit., 126.
11
MM note that this ’verb and its kindred are well established in the vernacular’, and they cite a catena of passages ranging from P.Eleph.198 (Ptol.) and P.Par.2218 (c. 165 BC) to a Christian prayer of the late fourth century AD.
12
Pompey, 24. 5 (Loeb trans.).
13
The Epistle of Aristeas 12.33 (cited from R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II, Pseudepigrapha, Oxford, 1913).
14
Ibid., 22.
15
Quod Omnis Prober Liber Sit 114.
16
De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 109.
17
Ant. 12.27.
18
Fragments 37.5.3 (cited from T. K. Abbott, ICC on Eph.1:7).
19
W. R. Paton and E. L. Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos (Oxford, 1891), p. 52 (no. 29).
20
Scholia in Lucianum, ed. H. Rake (Lipsiae, 1906), p. 220 (Scholia in Luciani Peregrin. 13).
21
So, for example, Büchsel, op. cit., p. 354.
22
The corresponding verb, ἀπoλυτρoω, does not occur in the New Testament, so there is no need to treat it fully. It is worth noting, however, that on almost every occasion on which it is found there is a mention of the ransom price. The passages are, Plato, Laws 919a; Demosthenes, 159.I5 (Philip’s Letter 3, Loeb edn., p. 336); Polybius, The Histories 2.6.6, 21.38.3; Plutarch, Pompey 24; Polyaenus, 5.40; Julian, Sixth Oration, to the Uneducated Cynics, Works, ed. Teubner, I, p. 253; Josephus, Bell. 2.14.1; Menander, Misoumenos 21; Philo, Leg.Alleg. 3.21; Letter of Aristeas 20; LXX, Ex.21: 8; Zp.3:I (but this seems an error). Warfield (PTR, XV, 1917, pp. 210f.) and T. K. Abbott (ICC on Eph.1:7) both say that Lucian uses the verb of Achilles’ ransoming Hector’s body, but neither gives the reference.
ω, does not occur in the New Testament, so there is no need to treat it fully. It is worth noting, however, that on almost every occasion on which it is found there is a mention of the ransom price. The passages are, Plato, Laws 919a; Demosthenes, 159.I5 (Philip’s Letter 3, Loeb edn., p. 336); Polybius, The Histories 2.6.6, 21.38.3; Plutarch, Pompey 24; Polyaenus, 5.40; Julian, Sixth Oration, to the Uneducated Cynics, Works, ed. Teubner, I, p. 253; Josephus, Bell. 2.14.1; Menander, Misoumenos 21; Philo, Leg.Alleg. 3.21; Letter of Aristeas 20; LXX, Ex.21: 8; Zp.3:I (but this seems an error). Warfield (PTR, XV, 1917, pp. 210f.) and T. K. Abbott (ICC on Eph.1:7) both say that Lucian uses the verb of Achilles’ ransoming Hector’s body, but neither gives the reference.23
Cf. MM, ‘It may be noted that in the LXX the word is always used to denote an equivalent.’
24
Other words from this word-group occur, namely λυτρωτoς (Lv. 25: 31, 32), and ἐ
λύτρωσς (Nu. 3 : 49). But as these do not occur in the New Testament we have not given attention to them. In any case their use scarcely affects the main issue.
ς (Lv. 25: 31, 32), and ἐλύτρωσς (Nu. 3 : 49). But as these do not occur in the New Testament we have not given attention to them. In any case their use scarcely affects the main issue.25
ga
’ al and ge’ ullah occur 118 times. They are translated by λύτρoν etc. 59 times, ῥύoμα 12 times (II in Isaiah), ἀγχστεύω (=‘be next or near, be next of kin’, LS) etc. 40 times, ἐξαρέω twice, ἐλαμβάνω once, while 4 times no one Greek word can be identified as the equivalent.
’ al and ge’ ullah occur 118 times. They are translated by λύτρoν etc. 59 times, ῥύoμα 12 times (II in Isaiah), ἀγχστεύω (=‘be next or near, be next of kin’, LS) etc. 40 times, ἐξαρέω twice, ἐλαμβάνω once, while 4 times no one Greek word can be identified as the equivalent.26
BDB give the meaning as, ‘redeem, act as kinsman’, and O. Procksch says, ‘g’l is a concept in family-law’ (TWNT, IV, p. 331). So also C. Ryder Smith says that, of the various translations of the verb, ‘ “to do the part of a kinsman” ... is nearest to the Hebrew’. He adds, ‘One could wish that there were some such English verb as “to kinsman” ’ (The Bible Doctrine of Salvation, London, 1946, p. 19). S. R. Driver’s view that the verb means ‘properly to resume a claim or right which has lapsed, to reclaim, re-vindicate’ (on Dt. 7: 8, ICC) does not go to the heart of the matter.
27
Cf. B. F. Westcott: ‘It cannot be said that God paid to the Egyptian oppressor any price for the redemption of His people. On the other hand the idea of the exertion of a mighty force, the idea that the “redemption” costs much, is everywhere present. The force may be represented by Divine might, or love, or self-sacrifice, which become finally identical’ (op. cit., p. 296). So also F. J. Taylor: ‘the idea of payment is not wholly forgotten’ (TWBB, p. 186).
28
pdh is rendered in the LXX by λυτρoω 43 times, λύτoν twice, λύτρωσς once, ἀπoλυτρoω once, ἀλλάσσω 3 times, σωξω twice, ῥύoμα 4 times, ἀϕoρξω once, while πρoσηύξατo (I Sa. 14: 45) looks like a paraphrase. It is not translated in Nu. 18: 16. Cognate words are found 11 times, λύτρoν etc. being represented 9 times, ῥύoμα once, δστoλή once.
ω 43 times, λύτoν twice, λύτρωσς once, ἀπoλυτρoω once, ἀλλάσσω 3 times, σωξω twice, ῥύoμα 4 times, ἀϕoρξω once, while πρoσηύξατo (I Sa. 14: 45) looks like a paraphrase. It is not translated in Nu. 18: 16. Cognate words are found 11 times, λύτρoν etc. being represented 9 times, ῥύoμα once, δστoλή once.29
Cf. TWNT, IV, p. 333. Yet this element of grace ought not to be set in too sharp an antithesis to the obligation implied in g’l. From Ru. 3: 13; 4: 4-6, it is clear that the go’el might refuse to carry out the act of redemption.
’el might refuse to carry out the act of redemption.30
His words are, ‘When in 1 Sa. 12: 3 the aged Samuel can testify that he has taken no kōpher (LXX: ἐξίλασμα), it is not at all certain from the context whether there is meant here also “atonement money for a condemned life”, but at the least it says nothing to the contrary. The same is true of Am. 5: 12’ (TWNT, III, p. 303).
31
S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray (ICC), p. 291.
32
Ibid., p. 313; similarly E. C. S. Gibson quotes Delitzsch as referring to ‘the ransom which is required of him as the price of restoration’ (in loc.).
33
C. H. Toy (ICC) says: ‘The form of the couplet suggests the sense that the righteous would, in the ordinary course of justice, be punished, but that God takes the wicked as his substitute’ (p. 406). He rejects that as ‘too crude a conception’, but he insists that the passage speaks of a ‘substitution’ thus bringing out the force of the kōpher.
34
Loc. cit.
35
TWNT, IV, p. 330.
36
Cited from The Jewish Encyclopedia, XI (New York and London, 1905), p. 271.
37
Cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism, II (Harvard, 1958), p. 298, and Jewish Encyclopedia, Art. ‘Go‘el’.
38
The Mishnah (Oxford, 1933), p. 342, n. 8.
39
See for example the passages listed in TWNT, IV, p. 341.
40
The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology (London, 1919), pp. 29-37, 49-56.
41
B. H. Branscomb remarks: ’this was one of Jesus’ most constant themes judging from the number of times and slightly varying forms in which the teaching occurs in the Gospels’ (MNTC, Mark, p. 190).
42
The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), p. 93.
43
Op. cit., p. 144.
44
CGT, in loc. S. E. Johnson also rejects the idea that the saying reflects the theology of the Gentile church and maintains that ‘one need not look further than Isa.lii. 13-liii. 12 for the background of this verse’ (BNTC, in loc.).
45
Thus J. Moffatt refers to the verse under discussion as ‘a saying which is one of the most self-authenticating in the record’ (MNTC, I Corinthians, p. 164).
46
Op. cit., pp. 190f.
47
A. Richardson is scathing about this suggestion: ‘It used to be held ... that these words were not spoken by Jesus, but represent a Marcan insertion of Pauline theology into the teaching of Jesus: but all such contentions reflect the theological outlook of their exponents rather than that of the NT. It would indeed be remarkable that St Mark should have thus brilliantly summarized in a word the theology of St Paul, in order to attribute it to Jesus, especially when we note that that word (λύτρον) is never used in the extant writings of the Apostle’ (An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, London, 1958, p. 220).
48
Op. cit., p. 51. He goes on to note that Loisy says: ‘The idea of a life given in ransom belongs to another course than that of service.’
49
ICC, in loc. His words are, ‘All that is required by the statement ... is that his life becomes the price by which men are freed from their bondage. The soldiers in the American civil war gave their lives as a λύτρον for the slaves, and every martyr’s death is a λύτρον. There may be more than this involved in the death of the Redeemer, but more than this is not involved in his words here.’
50
Op. cit., pp. 35f. Similarly W. Russell Maltby: ‘He lived and died serving; and the supreme service which He did for mankind was to die for them. In that context then, it was fitting to speak of His dying as the supreme example for us all to follow. But in all this there is no expiatory reference’ (Christ and His Cross, London, 1935, p. 136). It may be freely admitted that Christ’s death is ‘the supreme service’, but that does not mean that there is no thought of substitutionary ransom.
51
The ransom saying itself is held by many scholars to echo Is. 53, e.g. W. F. Howard, ET, L (1938-39), pp. 109f.; A. Richardson, loc. cit.; R. H. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus (London, 1954), P. 57.
52
Jesus the Messiah (London, 1943), p. 132.
53
Op. cit., p. 133. Manson’s examination of the evidence (pp. 131ff.) affords strong reason for accepting the genuineness of the ransom saying.
54
Thus F. Steinleitner says that the sense of λύτρον in this passage is that of ‘Loskaufgeld’ (Die Beicht in Zusammenhange, Leipzig, 1913, p. 37). Similarly L. Pullan, ‘The word “ransom” emphasises not only the idea of freedom gained for the believer and the great value of the price paid, but also the truth that His life is a substitute offered for our life in profound sympathy. Nothing short of this will satisfy the natural sense of the words employed’ (The Atonement, London, 1907, p. 101).
55
Jesus-Jeshua (London, 1929), p. 118.
56
TWNT, IV, p. 331, So, too, Orr in HDCG, II, 468, and he adds, ‘most admit the connexion’.
57
Op. cit., p. 330.
58
Ibid.
59
See Liddell and Scott for the classical use, and MM for the ονή. Cf. MM: ‘By far the commonest meaning of ἀντί is the simple “instead of.”’
ονή. Cf. MM: ‘By far the commonest meaning of ἀντί is the simple “instead of.”’60
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York, 1955), p. 100. Cf. also C. K. Barrett, ‘In λύτρον the idea of equivalence is central’; ‘this sense of equivalence or substitution is proper to λύτρον’ (New Testament Essays, Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins, Manchester, 1959, p. 6).
61
TWNT, I, p. 373.
62
E.g. by C. Ryder Smith, op. cit., p. 157.
63
Redemption and Revelation (London, 1942), p. 229. He may mean no more than that ἀντί means ‘for’ in this saying. If he means more, that this is its meaning generally, he has the lexicographers against him. In the overwhelming majority of places where it is found the word means ‘in place of’, ‘in the stead of’. J. H. Moulton says that in the New Testament ἀντί ‘retains its individuality’. He speaks of it as expressing ‘the idea of equivalence or return or substitution’ (A Grammar of New Testament Greek, I, Prolegomena, Edinburgh, 1930, p. 100).
64
Ibid. (my italics). Similarly F. J. Taylor says that the preposition ’suggests a substitutionary idea which is elsewhere expressed by reference to what Christ bore for men’ (TWBB, p. 187).
65
This is brought out by Büchsel’s comment: ‘In Mk.10.45: δουνα τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτου λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλων the setting of ἀντὶ πολλων is dependent on λύτρον not on δουνα. Therefore ἀντὶ has the meaning a not b in the sense of Mt. 17. 27 (He has already given the meaning a as ‘instead of’ and b as ‘for the benefit of’). The life of Jesus thus given is the suffcient price for the ransoming of the many. But if one were to connect ἀντὶ πολλων with δουνα and understand it in sense b the saying retains the actuality of a substitutionary conception. For that which the many are condemned to forfeit is not a cherished possession, but their life, their self; and what Jesus gives is His life, His self. For their advantage He does nothing other than stand in their place’ (TWNT, I, p. 373).
να τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτου λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλων the setting of ἀντὶ πολλων is dependent on λύτρον not on δουνα. Therefore ἀντὶ has the meaning a not b in the sense of Mt. 17. 27 (He has already given the meaning a as ‘instead of’ and b as ‘for the benefit of’). The life of Jesus thus given is the suffcient price for the ransoming of the many. But if one were to connect ἀντὶ πολλων with δουνα and understand it in sense b the saying retains the actuality of a substitutionary conception. For that which the many are condemned to forfeit is not a cherished possession, but their life, their self; and what Jesus gives is His life, His self. For their advantage He does nothing other than stand in their place’ (TWNT, I, p. 373).66
Ant. 14. 107.
67
A. Lods’ comment on Lv. 27: 11 reminds us of the ransom saying. ‘It would seem from this passage that the life (“the soul”) of the sinner is threatened by the holiness of God: he must give, as an equivalent, blood, that is a soul, a life. There is a ransom, a redemption, a death by proxy’ (The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism, London, 1937, p. 294).
68
In loc.
69
TWNT, IV, p. 344. There are other strong statements about substitution in the same article, e.g. pp. 345, 346.
70
Op. cit., p. 348.
71
The Synoptic Gospels, I (London, 1927), p. 253.
72
Cf. A. M. Hunter: ‘It would be rash to find here a doctrine of the Atonement; yet the preposition used (ἀντί, “instead of”) clearly implies substitution.... At the very least, then, we must say (it seems to me) that the death of Jesus takes the place of “the many” ’ (The Work and Words of Jesus, London, 1950, p. 98).
73
W. Manson, op. cit., p. 131.
74
‘The idea of substitution which is prominent in Isa. liii. 6, appears in the ransom saying’ (A. M. Hunter, op. cit., p. 100). Similarly W. Manson: ’The Son of Man here means Jesus on earth ... and the claim is that he fulfils his vocation by accepting the sacrificial function of the Servant of the Lord who gives his life “in compensation for the sins of the people, interposing for them as their substitute”’ (op. cit., p. 131). The quotation is from BDB, p. 80.
75
Cf. J. Schniewind, ‘Jesus Himself gives His own life as substitute for our lost >life’ (SJT, V, 1952, p. 272).
76
Vincent Taylor, dealing with certain objections to this saying, says, ’The idea that no act of requital is due to a Holy God, or is needed by men, is a modem notion which it would be a libel to attribute to the ancient world’ (Jesus and His Sacrifice, London, 1939, p. 105).
77
It should also be noted here that the manner of introducing the ransom price, ‘the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot’, brings us into the sphere of sacrificial thought. Whether or not the writer thought of sacrifice in general as in the nature of a ransom, he certainly conceived that the death of Christ was both a ransom price and a sacrificial offering.
78
See, for example, Westcott, in loc.
79
Cf. his often quoted remark on Rom. 3 :24, αὶοὺχ άπλ
ς εἷπε λυτρώ
εως άλλ’ ἁπολυτρώεως, ώς μηέτ ἡμᾶς έπανελθεῖ νπάλν έπὶ τὴν αύτὴν δουλεὶαν: ‘And he said not simply “ransoming”, but “ransoming away”, so that we no >more come again into the same slavery.’ Chrysostom is not concerned here so much with the process as the result, and thus he stresses the preposition.
αὶοὺχ άπλς εἷπε λυτρώεως άλλ’ ἁπολυτρώεως, ώς μηέτ ἡμᾶς έπανελθεῖ νπάλν έπὶ τὴν αύτὴν δουλεὶαν: ‘And he said not simply “ransoming”, but “ransoming away”, so that we no >more come again into the same slavery.’ Chrysostom is not concerned here so much with the process as the result, and thus he stresses the preposition.80
The passages he notes are Plutarch, Pomp. 24. 2; Josephus, Ant. 12. 2. 3; Philo, Quod Omn. Prob. lib. 17; Diod. Frag. lib. 37. 5. 3; Dn. 4: 30.
81
Thus T. Zahn says: ‘It is not to be overlooked that according to circumstances the regular meaning of the act. λυτροῡν, άπολυτροῡν (dimittere) or that of the mid. λυτρῡθα, άπολυτροῡθα
(redimere) lies at the basis, also the derived substantive denotes either the action of him who discharges, releases the imprisoned man from the hold, or the action of him who through the payment of a ransom price or even without this accomplishes the freeing of another who is in custody whether person or thing’ (Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, Leipzig, 1910, pp. 179f.). Although he speaks of freeing without payment of a ransom it is noteworthy that he cites no examples of this, and it may be doubted whether there are such. Procksch also points out the dual meaning of άπολύτρωσς and gives it as his verdict that, in the Bible, it is used following the sense of the middle (TWNT, IV, p. 336).
θα, άπολυτροῡθα
(redimere) lies at the basis, also the derived substantive denotes either the action of him who discharges, releases the imprisoned man from the hold, or the action of him who through the payment of a ransom price or even without this accomplishes the freeing of another who is in custody whether person or thing’ (Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, Leipzig, 1910, pp. 179f.). Although he speaks of freeing without payment of a ransom it is noteworthy that he cites no examples of this, and it may be doubted whether there are such. Procksch also points out the dual meaning of άπολύτρωσς and gives it as his verdict that, in the Bible, it is used following the sense of the middle (TWNT, IV, p. 336).82
The ransom, namely almsgiving, is referred to in verse 24. See also above, p. 18.
83
Frag. lib. 37.5.3.
84
Ant. 12.27.
85
PTR, XV (1917), p. 213, n.40.
86
See above, pp. 16ff.
87
Cf. the comment of C. H. Dodd on Rom. 3 : 2I-26: ‘We find that he is combining three metaphors: the first taken from the law-court - the metaphor of justification; the second taken from the institution of slavery - that of emancipation; the third taken from the sacrificial ritual of ancient religion - that of expiation by blood. Under all three metaphors he describes an act of God for men’ (MNTC, p. 56).
88
ICC, in loc. F. J. Leenhardt thinks that the term suggests ‘the deliverance from Egypt on the one hand, and on the other the emancipation of a slave by the payment of his peculium to the liberating gods’ (in loc.). C. K. Barrett maintains that the noun can mean simply ‘deliverance’, but that here ‘the connexion with blood and death suggests that it has not completely lost its original sense of “ransoming”, >emancipation by the payment of a price’ (in loc.).
89
The expression ‘redemption of the transgressions’ calls for some comment, and strange conclusions have sometimes been drawn from it as, for example, by Hofmann: ‘It is the transgressions (παραβάσες) themselves which are regarded as having fallen under the wrath of God, and so liable to punishment, and as delivered from this fall and liability by the work of the Redeemer’ (quoted by F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, II, Edinburgh, 1887, p. 104). But in Greek the genitive can express various relationships. Thus it has often been noted that τὴν μετοεíαν Bαβυλνοςin Mt. I : 12 merely signifies ‘a Babylon-removal’, whether of, to or from Babylon the form does not and cannot say. But the context and our general knowledge of the position clears up any indefmiteness and the expression is seen to mean ‘to Babylon’. So is it here. What is spoken of is a ‘transgressions-redemption’, and our knowledge of the general Christian context enables us to say that this means a redemption from transgressions. It is the transgressors, not the transgressions which are redeemed. Delitzsch has a helpful note in loc.
ς) themselves which are regarded as having fallen under the wrath of God, and so liable to punishment, and as delivered from this fall and liability by the work of the Redeemer’ (quoted by F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, II, Edinburgh, 1887, p. 104). But in Greek the genitive can express various relationships. Thus it has often been noted that τὴν μετοεíαν Bαβυλνοςin Mt. I : 12 merely signifies ‘a Babylon-removal’, whether of, to or from Babylon the form does not and cannot say. But the context and our general knowledge of the position clears up any indefmiteness and the expression is seen to mean ‘to Babylon’. So is it here. What is spoken of is a ‘transgressions-redemption’, and our knowledge of the general Christian context enables us to say that this means a redemption from transgressions. It is the transgressors, not the transgressions which are redeemed. Delitzsch has a helpful note in loc.90
J. B. Lightfoot, in loc.
91
Orr well remarks: ‘Alike in his (i.e. St. Paul’s) thought and that of St. Peter (cf.
IPI18.19) the idea of a λύτρον is involved in the conception of άπολύτρωσς Redemption has the two aspects, which can never be separated - redemption by “ransom,” i.e. from sin’s guilt and condemnation; and redemption by power, from sin’s bondage and other evil effects. The Apostolic gospel comprehended both’ (HDCG, II, p. 469).
ς Redemption has the two aspects, which can never be separated - redemption by “ransom,” i.e. from sin’s guilt and condemnation; and redemption by power, from sin’s bondage and other evil effects. The Apostolic gospel comprehended both’ (HDCG, II, p. 469).92
As Johannes Weiss does, ‘It is approximately = σωτηρὶά’ (in loc.).
93
A. Schlatter speaks of άπολύτρωσς here as ‘the ransom (Loskauf)’, and follows out the metaphor by saying ‘through which the condemnation to death is taken from the congregation’ (Paulus der Bote Jesu, Stuttgart, 1934, p. 97).
ς here as ‘the ransom (Loskauf)’, and follows out the metaphor by saying ‘through which the condemnation to death is taken from the congregation’ (Paulus der Bote Jesu, Stuttgart, 1934, p. 97).94
Cf the last words of the second brother: ‘Thou cursed miscreant! Thou dost despatch us from this life, but the King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, and revive us to life everlasting’ (verse 9).
95
Cf. Büchsel’s comment that the etymological meaning of άπλύτρωσς is ‘in Biblical usage “wiped out ” ’ (TWNT, IV, p. 358). So too, C. Anderson Scott says, ‘for the most part the meaning is weakened to simple “deliverance” ’ (Christianity ?> According to St. Paul, Cambridge, 1932, p. 28).
ς is ‘in Biblical usage “wiped out ” ’ (TWNT, IV, p. 358). So too, C. Anderson Scott says, ‘for the most part the meaning is weakened to simple “deliverance” ’ (Christianity ?> According to St. Paul, Cambridge, 1932, p. 28).96
TWNT, IV, p. 358.
97
Loc. cit.
98
Cf. Büchsel, op. cit., p. 351.
99
Cf. Orr in HDCG, II, p. 469: “Ransom” has here its true and proper sense of “a price paid in exchange,” and the ideas of “ransom” and expiatory sacrifice flow together in the unity of the thought of redemption through Christ’s reconciling >death.’
100
In the Scripture men are spoken of as slaves with regard to sin (Rom. 6:17), to men (I Cor. 7: 23), corruption (Rom. 8: 20), the rudiments or elemental spirits of the world (Gal. 4: 3), while the Gentiles are said in addition to be slaves to their gods (Gal. 4: 8).
101
Op. cit., p. 329.
102
E.g. P. Oxy. 1149 (Grenfell and Hunt, op. cit., VIII, p. 250).
103
Op cit., p. 324, n. 2.
104
Midrash Sifre on Numbers, 115 (trans. P. P. Levertoff, London, 1926), p. II0.
105
The Hebrew be, denoting price, is probably behind the ascription in Rev. I: 5, ‘to him that loves us and loosed us from our sins έν τ αíματ αύτοῡ’ in which case the sense of the passage is as J. Denney says, ‘Christ’s blood was the cost of our liberation, the ransom price which He paid’ (The Death of Christ, London, 1951, p. 134). R. H. Charles supports this, and he quotes WH’s explanation of the variant reading λούσαντ for λύσαντ as ’due to failure to understand the Hebraic use of έν to denote a price ... and a certain misapplication of vii. 14’ (ICC, in loc.).
αíματ αύτοῡ’ in which case the sense of the passage is as J. Denney says, ‘Christ’s blood was the cost of our liberation, the ransom price which He paid’ (The Death of Christ, London, 1951, p. 134). R. H. Charles supports this, and he quotes WH’s explanation of the variant reading λούσαντ for λύσαντ as ’due to failure to understand the Hebraic use of έν to denote a price ... and a certain misapplication of vii. 14’ (ICC, in loc.).106
Cf. E. de W. Burton, who gives the meaning of the verb with which we are concerned as ‘to redeem, to deliver at cost of some sort to the deliverer’ (ICC on Gal. 3:13).
107
In loc. Cf: his paraphrase: ‘Christ ransomed us from this curse pronounced by the law, Himself taking our place and becoming a curse for our sakes.’ V. F. Storr’s comment is of importance, because although he does not accept such an idea himself he yet recognizes that Paul’s language teaches it: ‘Like a black thundercloud the Law hung over men’s heads, and they looked up to it in fear that at any minute the lightning of the divine judgment might flame out from its heart. What could be done? God took the initiative. Christ came and on the Cross bore for us the doom which sin involved ... Christ bore the penalty which in strict justice we ought to have borne ... Death was the curse of the Law, and that curse Christ took upon Himself ’ (The Problem of the Cross, London, 1924, p. 55).
108
Similar interpretations are endorsed by many scholars of various periods, as Delitzsch: ‘He so takes (the curse) upon Him, that He in person represents the executed curse’ (op. cit., p. 426). D. W. Simon describes the action of Christ in this verse as ‘assuming the position or relationship of one who is under the curse’ (The Redemption of Man, London, 1906, p. 267) ; while even H. Bushnell says: ‘Probably the expression “being made a curse for us,” does imply that He somehow comes under the retributive consequences of our sin’ (The Vicarious Sacrifice, London, 1866, p. 121). J. Scott Lidgett comments: ‘His being made a curse is His entering into the whole of those evil consequences which are the mark of the displeasure of the law’ (The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, London, 1914, p. 47). Similarly W. Manson can speak of Jesus ‘taking the curse of their sin upon his spirit‘(Jesus the Messiah, London, 1943, p. 165), and H. G. G. Herklots says: ‘A curse indeed lay upon the one whom they hanged upon a tree; but it was the curse of man’s sin borne freely by one in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily’ (A Fresh
Approach to the New Testament, London, 1950, p. 23).
109
The Doctrine of the Work of Christ (London, 1937), p. 45, and cf. Burton: ‘The curse of the law was, therefore, an actual curse in the sense that it expressed the verdict of legalism, but not in the sense that he on whom it fell was accursed of God’ (in loc.); and again, commenting on Gal. 3 : 10, ‘The curse of which the verse speaks is not the curse of God, but as Paul expressly calls it in v. 13, the curse of the law.’
110
In loc. H. L. Goudge does not shrink from speaking of ‘the curse of God’, saying, ‘Thus, that Jesus had died upon the Cross had meant to St. Paul that He had died under the curse of God’ (Glorying in the Cross, London, 1940, p. 97).
111
Cf G. S. Duncan: ‘And if Paul does not say in so many words that the curse was imposed by God, he nevertheless believed, as his subsequent argument shows, that the Law which brought the curse in its train was introduced in order to further the divine purpose of redemption; and in so far as God was behind the giving of the Law, so far also was He a party to the curse’ (MNTC, Galatians, p. 101).
112
TWNT, I, pp. I26f.
113
Op. cit., p. 23 I. He also says, ‘Christ actually bears a part of the universal curse (in its consequences) and thus enables God graciously to remove it altogether’ (ibid.). H. A. A. Kennedy with reference to this verse speaks of ‘that redemption in which Christ became accursed ... for our sakes’ and goes on to refer to Christ as ‘the Redeemer and Substitute of His people’ (The Expositor, Eighth Series, X, p. 405). Similarly F. V. Filson puts Gal. 3: 13 at the head of a list of passages which show that ‘From one aspect this death is thought of as a substitutionary suffering by Christ of the penalty due to men for their sins’ (St. Paul’s Conception of Recompense, Leipzig, 1931, p. 15).
114
See additional note on this passage on pp. 62ff.
115
The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake, IV (London, 1933), p. 261.
116
Cf. the conjunction of the terms ἀπολύτρωσς and περποήσς in Eph. I: 14.
ς and περποήσς in Eph. I: 14.117
Grammatik der Griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, II, 2 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1934), p. 460.
118
Church Dogmatics, IV, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Part One (Edinburgh, 1956), p. 230.
119
In loc.
120
A. T. Robertson includes this passage among those where ‘ὑπέρ has the resultant notion of “instead”, and only violence to the context can get rid of it’ (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research, New York, 1919, p. 631). He denies a rigid distinction between ἀντί and ὑπέρ. The idea of substitution, he thinks, ‘depends on the nature of the action, not on ἀντί or ὑπέρ’ (op. cit., p. 630).
121
It is, however, possible that the verb gives us a clue to the way in which the noun δαθήη is to be understood in the Supper narrative. If this is so, the meaning of the verb here, ‘appoint’, would indicate a meaning like ‘authoritative disposition’ in the noun. For a discussion of this point see Candlish, ET, IV, p. 21.
αθήη is to be understood in the Supper narrative. If this is so, the meaning of the verb here, ‘appoint’, would indicate a meaning like ‘authoritative disposition’ in the noun. For a discussion of this point see Candlish, ET, IV, p. 21.122
Light from the Ancient East (London, 1927), p. 337.
123
Op. cit., pp. 337f.
124
Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (London, 1902), p. 141.
125
The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1892), pp. 300f.
126
Theology Today, VII (1950), p. 27.
127
HDB, V, p. 630b.
128
The Blood Covenant (New York, 1885), p. 264.
129
TWNT, II, p. 108.
130
Cf. W. Robertson Smith quoted on p. 75 below.
131
HDB, I, p. 510.
132
HDB, V, p. 630.
133
Cited from A. Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, II (London, 1911), p. 49. The cutting of animals in pieces at the making of a covenant is widely attested.
134
Op. cit., pp. 44f., 53f.
135
See the important article ‘Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition’, by George E. Mendenhall, The Biblical Archaeologist, XVII (Sept. 1954), pp. 50-76. Mendenhall also has references to covenant in his article, ‘Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law’, The Biblical Archaeologist, XVII (May 1954), pp. 26-46. Cf. also R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel Its Life and Institutions (London, 1961), pp. 147-50; J. Bright, A
History of Israel (London, 1960), pp. 134ff. There is a convenient summary of the evidence in J. A. Thompson’s Tyndale Lecture, The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament (London, 1964).
136
Op. Cit., p. 112.
137
The narrative seems to stress the activity of the people, e.g. Ex. 24: 3, 7.
138
The Biblical Doctrine of Election (London, 1950), p. 48.
139
The Relevance of the Prophets, p. 210 (cited in Rowley, op. cit., p. 139).
140
Op. cit., p. 239.
141
Op. cit., p. 240.
142
Moses (Oxford, 1946), p. 115.
143
The Religion of the Semites (London, 1927), p. 481.
144
Op. cit., p. 115.
145
HDB, I, p. 512. See also L. Pullan, The Atonement (London, 1907), p. 110.
146
Cf. J. Pedersen: ‘Everything in any way connected with sacrifice acquired an expiatory power’ (Israel, III-IV, London, 1947, p. 364).
147
Jesus-Jeshua (London, 1929), p. 166.
148
The First Epistle of St. Peter (London, 1898), p. 23.
149
Theologie des Alten Testaments, I (Leipzig, 1933), p. 73, n.8 (English translation, I, p. 157, n.2).
150
Mishnah San. 10: 3 refers this verse to the wilderness generation on the authority of R. Eliezer.
151
Cf. F. W. Dillistone: ‘from now onwards (i.e. the making of the covenant in Ex. 24) in the life of Israel the covenant and the sacrifice are indissolubly bound together. Only through sacrifice could the covenant be renewed and deepened; every offering of sacrifice was, at least ideally, a witness to the original covenant’ (The Significance of the Cross, London, 1946, p. 59).
152
Among the Rabbis this verse was sometimes at least understood as referring to the Passover, and Dalman adopts this interpretation (op. cit., pp. 166f.). But Midrash Rabbah Leviticus 6: 5 (Soncino trans., p. 85) understands it of the blood of the Sinai covenant.
153
Bright stresses this: ‘It will be noted that this form is markedly different from that of the patriarchal covenant, however much features in the latter may have prepared the way for it. There covenant rests on unconditional promises for the future, in which the believer was obligated only to trust. Here, on the contrary, covenant is based on gracious acts already performed, and issues in heavy obligation’ (op. cit., p. 135).
154
Dt. 33 : 5 might be translated, ‘He became king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people were gathered’, in which case the covenant is being regarded as the people’s acceptance of the kingship of Yahweh. Cf. S. R. Driver: Jehovah assumed, as it were, the sovereignty over Israel, when the tribes with their leaders (v. 21) were gathered about Him, on the “day of the assembly” (910 104 1816) at Sinai’ (ICC, Deuteronomy, p. 394); see also the Rabbinic views in section m below.
155
PTR, XI, 1913, p. 516.
156
Cf. N. H. Snaith’s comment on the covenant conception as we see it in Amos: ‘Amos holds that God chose Israel in a special and unique way. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth”, iii. 2. With this choice there are certain specific ethical demands ... the choice comes first and the demand second. The prophet speaks first of the Divine Election of Israel, and, secondly, says: “Therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities” ’ (The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, London, 1944, p. 108).
157
The Church Universal and Local (London, 1948), pp. 18f. Cf. W. A. L. Elmslie: ‘The Hebrew People’s Pledge at Horeb declared their confession that this God had never ceased to be faithful to His covenant with their fathers, and to the forgetful children of those fathers had manifested His abiding mercy. The Pledge was their acknowledgement of God’s continuing grace - to which they now responded, vowing themselves to be faithful, willing now to trust in His guidance and henceforth to walk in His ways’ (How Came Our Faith, Cambridge, 1948, p. 210). So also H. H. Rowley: ‘To effect that deliverance they (i.e. the Israelites) did not have to do anything, save trust their leader and follow him. After the deliverance was achieved they committed themselves to God in the obedience of the covenant’ (The Enduring Gospel, ed. R. G. Smith, London, 1950, p. 28).
158
Op. cit., p. 112.
159
Op. cit., p. 121.
160
The Prophecies of Isaiah, I (London, 1884), p. 266.
161
I, P. 991.
162
Lv. R. 6: 5 (Soncino trans., p. 83).
163
Shab. 135 a (Soncino trans., p. 679).
164
I, p. 991. They quote only one passage, but indicate that it is repeated in a number of parallel passages.
165
Although it should be noted that this designation is often referred directly to the covenant with Abraham, without mention being made of the Sinai covenant and its blood (see SB, II, p. 671). The expression is found once in the New Testament, namely Acts 7: 8.
166
Cf. Acts 3: 25 on which SB say: ‘ “Sons of the covenant” (= υἱoἰ τἢς δαθήης)means, when used absolutely, “sons of the covenant of circumcision” and designates Israelites in opposition to non-Israelites’ (II, p. 627).
αθήης)means, when used absolutely, “sons of the covenant of circumcision” and designates Israelites in opposition to non-Israelites’ (II, p. 627).167
Cant. R. i. 2, 4 (Soncino trans., p. 26).
168
Cant. R. i. 14.
169
Ab. vi. 10 and cf. Ab. v. 2, 3.
170
III, pp. 545ff
171
The other words represented are ’ahaiωâh ‘brotherhood’, dābhār ‘word’, kāthûb ‘that which is written’, tôrâh ‘law’, each of which occurs once in this connection, and ‘ēdhûth ‘testimony’, which is used four times. In addition δατίθεμαι δαθήην once translates slιlm (Hiph.).
ατίθεμαι δαθήην once translates slιlm (Hiph.).172
See TWNT, II, p. 129.
173
MM sub δαθήη.
αθήη.174
The Legal Terms Common to the Macedonian Inscriptions and the New Testament (Chicago, 1913), p. 46.
175
A Lexicographical and Historical Study of ΔIAΘHKH(Chicago, 1908), p. 30.
176
He says: ‘The only exception quoted... is not very clear. It contains a joke founded on some unknown popular story of the ape and the woman (or his wife)’ (The Expositor, Fifth Series, VIII, p. 325n.).
177
Cited from Norton, op. cit., p. 37.
178
Op. cit., p. 324.
179
Op. cit., p. 302.
180
Op. cit., pp. 63ff.
181
ICC, Galatians, pp. 185f., 503.
182
MNTC, Galatians, p. 106.
183
Op. cit., p. 265.
184
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, II (Edinburgh, 1887), p. 107.
185
The Expositor, Seventh Series, VII, p. 350.
186
Ibid.
187
Loc. cit.
188
James Moffatt speaks of the author as ‘playing effectively upon the double sense of the term’, and goes on to point out that this illustration of a will ‘has its defects, but only when it is pressed beyond what the writer means to imply’ (ICC, Hebrews, p. 127).
189
It denotes an action which in its main essentials is unilateral although that is not to deny that there is an aspect in which the people have to accept or reject the δαθήη. But the word places the stress not so much on this acceptance or rejection as on the authoritative laying down of the provisions of the covenant.
αθήη. But the word places the stress not so much on this acceptance or rejection as on the authoritative laying down of the provisions of the covenant.190
This may be of importance in understanding other New Testament passages which speak of blood with reference to the new covenant.
191
G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1944), sub παλαός.
ός.192
The Rabbinic writings sometimes refer to covenants in the plural. See SB, III, p. 262.
193
See the commentaries on this verse (e.g. Lightfoot, Duncan, Burton) for the thought that the law was essentially subordinate to the covenant, its function being only to convict men of sin. Cf. G. O. Griffith: ’The Law, properly understood, is in the service of grace; it is the means used by God to school man in the truth of his own insufficiency, and thus to lead him to righteousness where alone it can be found’ (St. Paul’s Gospel to the Romans, Oxford, 1949, p. 108).
194
Cf. F. C. N. Hicks: ‘For the Old Testament - or, to speak more correctly, the whole pre-Christian experience of the chosen people - does not solve the problem >of life. Its function is to discover it and to state it’ (The Fullness of Sacrifice, London, 1946, p. 117).
195
Cf. Moffatt, ‘The real interest of the writer in this Jeremianic oracle is shown when he returns to it in 1016—18; what arrests him is the promise of a free, full pardon at the close’ (ICC, on Heb. 8: 8).
196
On this verse W. C. Allen comments: ‘Mt., by adding εἰς ἄϕεσν ἃμαρτῶν, shows that he understood the covenant to be a covenant between God and the many by which remission of sins was secured to them’ (ICC, p. 276). More apposite for our present purpose is the comment of A. H. M‘Neile who sees in ‘This is my blood of the covenant’ a reference to the peace-offering, and in ‘unto remission of sins’ a reference to the sin offering, and adds, ‘But the latter is presupposed in the former, even if Jesus did not say “for the remission of sins” ’ (in loc.). That is, he sees the thought of remission in the very idea of the new covenant.
ν ἃμαρτῶν, shows that he understood the covenant to be a covenant between God and the many by which remission of sins was secured to them’ (ICC, p. 276). More apposite for our present purpose is the comment of A. H. M‘Neile who sees in ‘This is my blood of the covenant’ a reference to the peace-offering, and in ‘unto remission of sins’ a reference to the sin offering, and adds, ‘But the latter is presupposed in the former, even if Jesus did not say “for the remission of sins” ’ (in loc.). That is, he sees the thought of remission in the very idea of the new covenant.197
There is a difficult textual problem here and most scholars reject the words. They are accepted as genuine, however, by G. Vos, HDCG, II, p. 375; A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament (London, 1952), pp. 37-40; J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Oxford, 1955), pp. 87-106, and by an impressive list of writers cited by Jeremias, op. cit., p. 106, n. 1.
198
Jesus and His Sacrfice (London, 1939), pp. 138f. R. Mackintosh (Historic Theories of Atonement, London, 1920, pp. 54f.) also accepts this point of view.
199
Op. cit., p. 23.
200
Op. cit., p. 24.
201
MM, sub διαθήχη.
202
So, for example, W. P. Paterson in HDB, Art. ‘Sacrifice’; A. E. Garvie, The Christian Certainty amid the Modern Perplexity (London, 1910), p. 79; H. Maldwyn Hughes, What is the Atonement? (London, n.d.), p. 58.
203
The idea of mediation is much more widespread than its mention in set terms. Ryder Smith says it ‘pervades the New Testament’ (The Bible Doctrine of Salvation, London, 1946, p. 183).
204
TWNT, IV, pp. 603f.
205
Op. cit., p. 218.
206
ICC. Hebrews, p. 107.
207
Art. αĩμα in TWNT.
208
Art. ‘Blood’ in TWBB. See additional note on pp. 126ff. for some important statements.
209
It may well be that after examination it will appear that the meaning of sacrificial blood is essentially that of one of the other groups, but for the present it seems best to leave it as a separate group.
210
Jesus and His Sacrifice (London, 1939), pp. 54f. Cf. also E. L. Mascall (summarizing Hicks), ‘The slaying was merely an indispensable preliminary by which the life was set free to be offered’ (Corpus Christi, London, 1955, p. 89).
211
The Meaning of the Word ‘Bood’ in Scripture (London, 1954), p. 10.
212
Cf. Ex. 21: 23; Lv. 24: 18 ; Dt. 19:21, and passages where the letting go of a prisoner is to be punished by the execution of the guard responsible, I Ki. 20: 39, 42; 2 Ki. 10: 24.
213
Cf. Lods’ explanation of the verse: ‘There is a ransom, a redemption, a death by proxy’ (The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism, London, 1937, p. 294).
214
Vincent Taylor, The Atonement in New Testament Teaching (London, 1946), p. 198. It is largely his view of the meaning of blood which leads him to say ‘those scholars are justified who insist that the most significant conception in sacrifice is that of life offered to God’ (Jesus and His Sacrifice, London, 1939, p. 59). But he frankly admits ‘It would be folly to pretend that this conception of sacrifice is taught in the Old Testament or was a theme of Rabbinical teaching’ (ibid.).
215
Op. cit., p. II.
216
Similarly in the Mishnah we find mention of atonement in the confession while hands are laid on the head of the animal (Yom. 3: 8; 4: 2; 6: 2).
217
In view of this association of atonement with the fat it is worth noticing that a very important place is assigned to the fat throughout the sacrifices, so that this association with atonement is not surprising. Thus it is explicitly said that ‘all the fat is the Lord‘s’ (Lv. 3:16), and there is a prohibition of eating the fat in exactly the same terms as that of partaking of the blood (Lv. 3: 17). Similarly the fat and the blood are closely associated with one another in Isaiah’s denunciation (Is. 1:11 and cf. Is. 34: 6). If the manipulation of blood and the final pouring of it at the base of the altar are essentials of sacrifice, no less so is the burning of the fat on the altar. Again, in David’s lamentation over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sa. 1: 22) fat is clearly just as much a symbol of life (or death) as is blood.
218
H. Hubert and M. Mauss in their important examination of the concept of sacrifice concluded that the essential thing is the destruction of the victims, at least as regards possession by the worshipper (L’Année
Sociologique, II, 1897-8, pp. 71, 75f., 133, etc.). Eugene Masure finds the essence of sacrifice in ‘a religious transfer of property’ (The Christian Sacrifice, London, 1944, p. 34).
219
In loc.
220
Bernard says that the use of the expression πίνειν τò αĩμα in Jn. 6: 53 ’as distinct from ϕαγεĩν τὴν σάρχα, indicates that the Flesh and Blood have been separated, and thus it suggests death, even more definitely than ϕαγεĩν τὴν σάρχα does’ (ICC, in loc.). Westcott also sees in the separation indication of violent death (in loc.).
221
It may be noted that both expressions are found in a metaphorical sense in the Old Testament, namely Ps. 27: 2; 2 Sa. 23:17.
222
Cf. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam: ‘It is impossible to get rid from this passage of the double idea (1) of a sacrifice; (2) of a sacrifice which is propitiatory’ (ICC, Romans, p. 91).
223
I regard the view that ‘that of Abel’ refers to the blood of Abel’s sacrifice as untenable, on the ground that the reference to the blood speaking marks the passage as an allusion to Gn. 4: 10. There is no suggestion in Gn. 4 of the blood of Abel’s sacrifice speaking.
224
TWNT, I, p. 173.
225
2nd edn. (London, 1954), pp. 4ff.
226
New York, 1885.
227
Op. cit, p. 38.
228
The Vicarious Sacrifice (London, 1866), p. 401.
229
Op. cit., p. 434.
230
London, 1874.
231
The Parish Communion, ed. A. G. Hebert (London, 1957), p. 89.
232
ICC, Hebrews, p. xlii.
233
The Death of Christ (London, 1951), pp. 149f.
234
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (London, 1904), p. 29.
235
HDAC, I, p. 121.
236
Enc. Bib., col. 4221 and note.
237
TWBB, p. 33.
238
TWBB, Art. ‘Sacrifice’.
239
TWNT, II, p. 136. He reaches a similar conclusion in his treatment of αϊμα (TWNT, I, p. 173).
240
The Bible Doctrine of Salvation (London, 1946), p. 233; and cf. J. S. Stewart, A Man in Christ (London, 1947), p. 237; F. W. Dillistone, The Significance of the Cross (London, 1946), p. 68; G. O. Griffith, St. Paul’s Gospel to the Romans (Oxford, 1949), p. 17.
241
Readings in St. John’s Gospel (London, 1947), p. 3.
242
Perhaps another possibility should be noted, that the expression may reflect the Hebraic construction whereby greatness is conveyed by referring to the deity (as when Nineveh is described as ‘a city great to God’, i.e. ‘a very great city’, Jon. 3: 3). Thus J. C. Ryle suggests that ‘the Lamb of God’ may be a way of saying ‘that eminent, great, divine, and most excellent Lamb’ and he instances ‘thunderings of God’ (Ex. 9: 28) as an example of this construction (Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, St. John, I, London, 1957, p. 60). He himself prefers the view that ‘it signifies the Lamb which God has provided from all eternity’.
243
Lv. 17: 11 connects atonement with ‘the blood’ (which was certainly shed in the Passover sacrifice), and not with any particular sacrifice. Cf. J. Pedersen, ‘Everything in any way connected with sacrifice acquired an expiatory power’ (Israel, III-IV, London, 1947, p. 364). So also, C. R. North: ‘By the close of the OT period, too, all sacrifices were believed to have atoning value’ (TWBB, p. 206).
244
Ex.R. 15: 12 (Soncino edn., p. 176). Dalman translates the last expression as ‘I propitiate your souls’ (Jesus-Jeshiia, London, 1929, p. 167); he cites another Midrash, ‘I see the Paschal blood and propitiate you’ (ibid.). J. Jeremias renders the same words ‘and will atone for you (mkpr ‘l npshwtykm)’ (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, Oxford, 1955, p. 147, n. 3). He cites several other Rabbinic passages which make it plain that the Passover was regarded as expiatory.
245
Nu.R. 13: 20 (Soncino edn., p. 554). The passage goes on to cite the words, ‘when I see the blood, I will pass over you’ (Ex. 12: 13) as showing that they had been redeemed from their idol worship.
246
Ant. ii. 312.
247
The passage from Numbers Rabbah cited above explicitly speaks of a goat as the Passover victim: ‘For a he-goat was offered as a sin-offering on account of the sin of idol-worship’ (13:20; Soncino edn., p. 554).
248
Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Oxford, 1925), p. 397.
249
He says, ‘the Evangelist is thinking of the Servant of Yahweh, for Isa. liii. 7 and 12 easily explain the references to a lamb and to sin-bearing’ (Jesus and His Sacrifice, London, 1939, p. 227).
250
Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Sept. 1950, p. 103, n. 4.
251
W. Zimmerli and J. Jeremias, The Servant of God (London, 1957), p. 82.
252
C. H. Dodd makes this criticism: ‘ἀµνός in the LXX never translates ṭāleh. No examples are adduced of ṭālyā’ as a rendering for ‘ebhedh ... Thus we lack evidence in support of the view either that the Aramaic-speaking Church (or John the Baptist) could have spoken of the ‘bd YHWH as ṭly‘d‘lh’, or that a bilingual translator who took ṭalyā’ in the sense of “lamb” would have chosen ἀµνός as its >equivalent’ (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1953, pp. 235f ).
253
E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. F. N. Davey (London, 1950), p. 169. Again he speaks of ‘the original and primary witness of John, who declares Jesus to be the property of God, by whose complete obedience the normal sacrifices in the Temple - a lamb without blemish was offered daily both morning and evening ...-were fulfilled and superseded’ (op. cit., p. 176).
254
See J. H. Bernard, ICC, St. John, I, p. 43.
255
Op. cit., pp. 230-37.
256
Op. cit., p. 233.
257
Op. cit., p. 236.
258
Op. cit., p. 237.
259
NTS, I, 1955, p. 210.
260
Op. cit., p. 211.
261
Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden, 1961), p. 225. See also H.J. Schoeps, Paul (London, 1961), pp. 141-9.
262
An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London, 1958), p. 228. T. F. Glasson is another who inclines to the view that Gn. 22 is behind the expression (Moses in the Fourth Gospel, London, 1963, pp. 96-100).
263
Vetus Testamentum, XI, p. 425.
264
Op. cit., pp. 213f.
265
It might perhaps be maintained that the ‘lamb that is led to the slaughter’ of Is. 53: 7 is connected with the taking away of sin, since it refers to the Suffering Servant and He is depicted as suffering for sin. But in the first place the suffering for sin is not connected with the use of the term ‘lamb’, and in the second place the Servant is spoken of as a guilt offering (Is. 53: 10, see RV mg.). There is no exception here.
266
HDB, IV, p. 132.
267
TWNT, III, p. 300.
268
The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement (Edinburgh, 1870), p. 455.
269
MM sub ἱλάσoµα.
oµα.270
JTS, XXXII, 1930-31, p. 352. His article is reprinted without substantial alteration in The Bible and the Greeks.
271
Op. cit., p. 316.
272
Cf. Büchsel: ‘It follows from the preceding parallel part that by the έξλασθέν a person, not a thing, is meant’ (op. cit., p. 317, n. 75).
λασθέν a person, not a thing, is meant’ (op. cit., p. 317, n. 75).273
Ibid.
274
See below, pp. 203ff., for similar accusatives.
275
Loc. cit.
276
Loc. cit.
277
Op. cit., p. 360.
278
Ibid.
279
MNTC, Romans, pp. 20f.
280
Cf. R. W. Dale on the Jewish use of the term: ‘Not a solitary instance can be alleged in which to propitiate, or any of its derivatives, when used in relation to the restoration of kindly relations between man and man, denotes that by which a change is produced in the disposition of a person who has committed an offence; it always refers to that which changes the disposition of the person who has been offended; and when used in relation to offences against the Divine law, it always describes the means by which the sin was supposed to be covered in order that the Divine forgiveness might be secured’ (The Atonement, London, 1902, pp. 162f.). James Denney has a remark which is worthy of note, ’The characteristic words of religion cannot be applied in new ways at will. Now the idea of ἱλαµός or propitiation is not an insulated idea.... It is part of a system of ideas’ (The Death of Christ, London, 1951, p. 150).
281
What is the Atonement? (London, n.d.), pp. 54f.
282
MNTC, Romans, pp. 22f.
283
JTS, XXXII, 1931, p. 353.
284
Op. cit., p. 356.
285
Op. cit., p. 359.
286
Westminster Theological Journal, XVII, 1955, pp. 117-157.
287
Op. cit., p. 129.
288
J. Barr points out that even within one language we must be careful. Thus in English the word ‘time’ in some contexts does not differ greatly from ‘occasion’ and in others from ‘period’. But ‘occasion’ and ‘period’ will ‘in very many contexts, or in all, present great contrast with one another’ (Biblical Words for Time, London, 1962, p. 108). This whole section of Barr’s work forms a damaging criticism of the kind of method Dodd is employing, though he makes no explicit reference to it.
289
The verb is used absolutely four times, with dative of persons three times, with dative of sin three times, and with accusative of sin once. The underlying Hebrew is ṣlḥ (six times), kppr (three times), nḥm (once), while there is no Hebrew corresponding to Est. 13: 17.
290
Some would take θυμός here to mean something like ‘purpose’ since the Hebrew of the Massoretic text is 
But even if this be accepted there is still the stress on the magnitude of the sin, and in any case that Manasseh had aroused the anger of the Lord is clear from other passages such as 2 Ki. 23: 26.
But even if this be accepted there is still the stress on the magnitude of the sin, and in any case that Manasseh had aroused the anger of the Lord is clear from other passages such as 2 Ki. 23: 26.291
Nicole indicates the precariousness of relying on this accusative by drawing attention to the fact that, in the ἱλάσχομα group as a whole, the accusative ‘may be used to refer to the impurity removed, the object cleansed, the offering presented, the person reconciled!’ (op. cit., p. 131).
group as a whole, the accusative ‘may be used to refer to the impurity removed, the object cleansed, the offering presented, the person reconciled!’ (op. cit., p. 131).292
The verb is also found in the Sixtine text of 2 Ch. 6: 30, but here again the context speaks of disasters which evidence the divine displeasure.
293
ἱλασμός also occurs as the reading of A in Sir. 18: 20, and of 
* in Sir. 32: 5, but in both places ἐξλασμός is the better attested reading.
* in Sir. 32: 5, but in both places ἐξλασμός is the better attested reading.294
ET, XXII, p. 323.
295
TWNT, III, p. 302.
296
See above pp. 24ff.
297
With this expression should be compared hillâh ‘eth-penē- which BDB explain as ‘lit. make the face of any one sweet or pleasant’, and thus ‘mollify, appease, entreat the favour of’. The idea in kipper is similar, but carries with it the thought that the making of the face sweet is by specific means, namely, the offering of a gift. It is the turning away of anger by means of a kōpher.
In passing we note that the suggestion often put forward that ‘akhapperâh phānāyw here means ‘I will cover his face’ will not fit the context, for Jacob goes on ‘and afterward I will see his face’.
2
Cf. Herrmann: ‘In Is. 47, II kpr means “pay kōpher”, “provide kōpher”, “avert through kōpher” in parallel to shḥd (“provide shōḥadh”, “avert through shōḥadh”), from which kpr appears to be a denominative from kōpher just as shḥd from shōḥadh; thereby it is a question of the averting of a destruction in death’ (op. cit., p. 304).
BDB give shaḥadhāh as the probable reading, citing in support a number of Hebraists. But it should be borne in mind that other scholars from the analogy of the Arabic read ‘charm it away’ with RV mg. (see authorities in BDB sub shāḥadh and shāḥar respectively). If this is accepted as the sense of the word there is again an interesting parallelism, and one in which the meaning of kpr remains as suggested above.
BDB bring out the connection of the verb with kōpher in their section on kipper where the meaning of Is. 47: II is given as ‘and disaster will fall upon thee, thou wilt not be able to propitiate it (by payment of a kōpher, see Is. 43: 3).’ shōḥadh occurs in parallelism with kōpher in Pr. 6: 35.
298
S. R. Driver goes rather further than I would think justified when he says, ’the heifer in this rite is manifestly designed as a substitute for the unknown murderer, and bears the penalty which ought properly to be his’ (ICC, Deuteronomy, pp. 241f.). We see the force of this rite if we imagine that after it has been performed the murderer is discovered. Presumably in this case he would not be allowed to go scot free, which ought to be the case if the penalty has been borne. The real significance of the rite is that it averts the divine wrath from the community; it is the kōpher whereby immunity from punishment for the crime is purchased.
The Mishnah says that if the slayer were found after the killing of the heifer, he was to be put to death (Sot. 9:7).
299
Pr. 16: 14. BDB under kipper comment, ‘pacify the wrath of a king, Pr. 16: 14 (e.g. by a gift)’.
300
Cf. Dodd in JTS, XXXII, 1931, p. 355, ‘the story is one of “propitiation” in the crudest sense.’
301
Cf. G. F. Moore: ‘by a fault of method which has been fruitful of error in the study of the OT, the investigation has frequently set out from etymological assumptions instead of from the plain facts of usage’ (Enc. Bib., IV, col. 4220). So also E. König: ‘the Heb. usage of the word kipper is the only starting-point from which to determine the original signification of the word’ (ET, XXII, p. 380).
302
Cf. the Midrash on Numbers: ‘Moses pondered: Who is in a position to give ransom for his soul? ... The Holy One, blessed be He, told him: “I do not ask for ransom in accordance with My means, but in accordance with their means ...”’ Midrash Rabbah, Numbers 12:3 (Soncino trans., pp. 451f.).
303
Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Oxford, 1925), p. 51.
304
Davidson says: ‘whatever older or more primary ideas of sacrifice may have been, in the Old Testament at least sacrifice is of the nature of a gift to God’ (The Theology of the Old Testament, Edinburgh, 1904, p. 353). He also says: ‘The traditional explanation has been that the death of the victim was a poena vicaria for the sin of the offerer. And it is probable that this idea did become attached to sacrifice’ (ibid.), though he questions whether this thought is to be found in the law.
305
A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923), p. 114, no. 30, lines 27f.
306
Cf. the statement quoted from the Jewish Encyclopedia on p. 174 below.
307
Or perhaps a different (and now lost) reading. Either way it sheds no light on our problem.
308
JTS, XXXII, 1931, p. 355.
309
II, p. 275. S. R. Driver makes a thorough examination of kipper in his article on ‘Propitiation’ in HDB and concludes that, when the verb is used in a ritual sense, it means ‘to make propitiation’, and in other places it signifies ‘deal propitiously with’, or ‘be propitious to’. See also his commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC), pp. 425f.
310
TWNT, V, p. 396.
311
Cf. G. O. Griffith: ‘we picture “wrath” as we might think of the fury of a storm. The Hebrew Prophets, when they spoke of the “wrath of God”, ethicized the idea of anger so that it meant the absolute implacable hostility of the Divine Holiness to every form of moral evil’ (St. Paul’s Gospel to the Romans, Oxford, 1949, p. 21), or again: ‘The wrath is no fitful outburst of personal anger but the implacable antagonism of holiness for evil, an antagonism that bums eternally’ (op. cit., pp. 85f.).
312
Cf., for example, Ho. 11: 1-4 with Ho. 11: 5f.
313
G. Buchanan Gray says: ‘The ideas of expiation of sin and propitiation of God are in Hebrew thought closely related’ (op. cit., p. 74).
314
Cf. P. T. Forsyth: ‘Given! Did you ever see the force of it? “I have given you the blood to make atonement. This is an institution which I set up for you to comply with, set it up for purposes of My own, on principles of My own, but it is My gift.” The Lord Himself provided the lamb for the burnt offering’ (The Work of Christ, London, 1948, p. 90).
315
Ibid., p. 90. It is of interest in connection with the foregoing that H. Wheeler Robinson regards ‘propitiatory’ as one of the four chief ways of regarding the sacrifices (Redemption and Revelation, London, 1942, pp. 249f.).
316
MNTC, Romans, p. 23.
317
Ibid.
318
Lexicon sub θυμός.
319
LS, s.v. The Eighth edn. says the word means ‘Properly to swell and teem with moisture’.
320
Thus G. Stählin says of ỏργή: ‘Nevertheless this word includes an element of consciousness, even of deliberation, which is absent from θυμός; in Jas. 1: 19 (βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν) for example ὀργή could hardly be replaced by θυμός’ (TWNT, V, p. 419).
321
To cite Stahlin again: ‘But one could well say that θυμός, to which there cleaves the idea of outbursting passion, is well suited for the representation of the vision of the seer, but not as a designation for the Pauline conception of the wrath of God’ (op. cit., p. 423).
322
Stählin introduces his section on ‘The Revelation of the Divine Wrath’ by saying: ‘Wrath is an integral trait in the evangelists’ portrait of Jesus. To be sure, the subject is mentioned only seldom in express words ... but the fact is clearly more often there’ (op, cit., p. 428).
323
So Sydney Cave (to whose writings the present writer owes a debt he can never repay): ‘they (i.e. Law and Wrath) are almost personified powers, which, owing to God their origin, act on in partial independence of God, and are hostile to men as He is not’ (The Doctrine of the Work of Christ, London, 1937, p. 43). The idea is categorically rejected by F. V. Filson: ‘it is unwarranted to separate wrath from God, personalize it, and so make it a personal power independent of God ... Paul >was not thinking of a separate being called Wrath’ (St. Paul’s Conception of Recompense, Leipzig, 1931, p. 40, n.2). Similarly Stählin (op. cit., p. 425).
324
Christianity According to St. Paul (Cambridge, 1932), p. 78.
325
R. V. G. Tasker speaks of some severe sayings of Jesus and comments: ‘These are sayings of terrible severity, but they are just as much part of the revelation of God made known in Christ Jesus as those sayings and deeds of the Master which so conspicuously display the divine love and mercy. To thrust these severe sayings on one side and to concentrate attention solely upon passages of the Gospels where the divine Fatherhood is proclaimed is to preach a debilitated Christianity, which does not and cannot do what Christ came into the world to do, viz. save men from the wrath to come’ (The Biblical Doctrine of the Wrath of God, London, 1951, p. 36).
326
Op. cit., p. 242. He also says: ‘The love of God is not more real than the wrath of God’ (ibid). Cf. Emil Brunner: ‘His Holy Will is unconditionally active: if it is not effective for blessing or salvation, then, in consequence of the human break in the divine order, it works in the opposite direction, and produces disaster. But this will is personal. God is present in this anger, it is actually His anger’ (The Mediator, London, 1942, p. 518). So P. Althaus: ‘So long as God is God He cannot deny in Himself His holiness and His wrath’ (Mysterium Christi, ed. G. K. A. Bell and A. Deissmann, London, 1930, p. 198); or again: ‘Sin has not only determined the attitude of men but also the relation between God and men. Man’s attitude is only a part of the relationship; the whole relationship is determined by the wrath of God’ (op. cit., p. 200).
327
Redemption and Revelation (London, 1942), p. 269.
328
There are numerous references to the ark of the covenant (of which the mercy-seat was the lid), as being used outside the holy of holies, e.g. Jos. 3: 3; 4: 5, etc., and the well-known incident in 1 Sa. 4 when the Philistines captured it. That it was the practice to carry the ark with the armies in time of war seems clear, cf. Uriah’s remark to David, ‘The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in booths’ (2 Sa. 11: 11). Many recent writers are of opinion that the ark was in regular use in connection with cultic practices such as an enthronement festival or sacred marriage. The last mention of the ark in 2 Ch. 35: 3, an instruction to put it into the temple, shows that it was still used in some manner not now known. But as our primary concern is with the later usage, that with which the men of the New Testament were concerned, we may set aside these practices. All the more is this so since the kappōreth is not mentioned in any such passage, and it may well have been the case that it was not carried round with the ark. That it was more than merely a lid to the ark seems implied by the reference to the holy of holies in 1 Ch. 28: 11 as ‘the house of the kappōreth’ and the designation of Yahweh as ‘thou that sittest upon the cherubim’ (Ps. 80: 1). The kappōreth clearly had existence in its own right, and was very closely associated with the presence of Yahweh.
329
See F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans. R. W. Funk (Cambridge, 1961), p. 59, for the view that the termination signifies place. J. H. Moulton and W. F. Howard, however, amply document both ‘place’ and ‘instrument or means’ (A Grammar of New Testament Greek, II, Edinburgh, 1919, p. 342). They class ἱλαστἠριου under the latter heading. A. T. Robertson thinks that the termination usually signifies place, but for ἱλαστἡριον in Romans he takes the meaning to be ‘propitiatory gift’ or ‘means of propitiation’ (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, London, n.d., p. 154).
330
B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, Fayûm Towns and their Papyri (London, 1900), p. 313 (no. 337).
331
Ant. xvi. 7. 1.
332
Yet G. F. Moore says ‘the interpretation “atoning sacrifice” (after the analogy of σωτήρoν, χαρστήρoν, τελεστήρoν, etc.) is not entirely certain, though highly probable’, Enc. Bib., col. 4229. Similarly Charles Hodge (in loc.) favours ‘propitiatory sacrifice’, and J. Denney uses the same expression in his paraphrase of the passage in Studies in Theology (London, 1895), pp. 115f. F. Platt says: ‘Its interpretation as “a propitiatory offering” - a means of rendering God consistently favourable towards sinful men and the means of reconciliation between God and man - is the most natural, and is indeed the only meaning suitable to the context of Ro 3; other Pauline passages harmonize with it better than with any other meaning’ (HDAC, II, p. 283).
oν, χαρστήρoν, τελεστήρoν, etc.) is not entirely certain, though highly probable’, Enc. Bib., col. 4229. Similarly Charles Hodge (in loc.) favours ‘propitiatory sacrifice’, and J. Denney uses the same expression in his paraphrase of the passage in Studies in Theology (London, 1895), pp. 115f. F. Platt says: ‘Its interpretation as “a propitiatory offering” - a means of rendering God consistently favourable towards sinful men and the means of reconciliation between God and man - is the most natural, and is indeed the only meaning suitable to the context of Ro 3; other Pauline passages harmonize with it better than with any other meaning’ (HDAC, II, p. 283).333
So W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, ICC, in /oc.; J. Denney, Expositor’s Greek Testament, II (London, 1900), p. 611; Vincent Taylor, ET, L, 1938-39, p. 296; et al.
334
See Sanday and Headlam, in loc.
335
A Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter of Paul’ s Epistle to the Romans (London, 1866), p. 284.
336
The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (London, 1886), p. 98.
337
Enc. Bib., col. 3033.
338
JTS, XLVI, 1945, P. 3.
339
TWNT, III, p. 320.
340
James Morison thinks that kappōreth combines the ideas of ‘propitiation’ and ‘cover’, but translators into Greek, if using only one term, must choose between these ideas. Thus įλαστήρoν retains propitiation and loses cover, while ἐπįθεμα (Josephus) retains cover and loses propitiation. This passage manages to express both ideas (op. cit., pp. 290-91).
oν retains propitiation and loses cover, while ἐπįθεμα (Josephus) retains cover and loses propitiation. This passage manages to express both ideas (op. cit., pp. 290-91).341
Op. cit., p. 4. H. P. Liddon cites Levy (Chald. Dict.) as assigning to kappōreth the meaning ‘a place of expiation’, Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (London, 1893), p. 75.
342
Cited in Enc. Bib., col. 3031.
343
Op. cit., p. 3. This is supported by Schleusner’s understanding of ‘azārâh as ‘atrium, crepido altaris, sive: spatium, in quo sacerdotes circa altare obambulare poterant’ (Novus Thesaurus Philologico-Criticus: sive Lexicon in LXX, London, 1829, sub įλαστήρoν).
oν).344
TWNT, III, p. 322.
345
Op. cit., p. 7.
346
Cf. W. D. Davies, ‘The tones of confession may be audible in Rom. 3. 10f. but in the rather philosophical explanation of the origin and growth of human sinfulness, Rabbinic in thought but Stoic in expression, which we find in Rom. 1. 18f.; in the argumentative indictment of Rom. 2. 1f. and in the tortuous thought of Rom. 3. 1f. it is impossible to overhear them’ (Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, London, 1948, P. 242).
347
W. D. Davies thinks it ‘doubtful ... whether the αυτoυ is to be emphasized’ (ibid.).
τoυ is to be emphasized’ (ibid.).348
See the evidence collected in Gifford, Addit. Note on Rom. 3: 25 (op. cit., P. 97).
349
Op. cit., p. 87.
350
Commentary on Romans (London, 1952), p. 157.
351
I have not specially noted the view of C. Anderson Scott who holds that ‘We may then translate or paraphrase’ Rom. 3: 25 thus: ‘Whom God set forth a victim unto blood as one able to effect reconciliation through faith’ (Abingdon Commentary in loc.; he has similar statements elsewhere). His view involves many improbabilities as Vincent Taylor has shown, ET, L, 1938-39, pp. 295ff
352
Cf. Biichsel, ‘Outside biblical and Jewish Greek the neuter substantive įλαστήρoν has been shown to mean “votive gift” ’ (TWNT, III, p. 321).
oν has been shown to mean “votive gift” ’ (TWNT, III, p. 321).353
Vincent Taylor interprets the word broadly, and while regarding it as adjectival, gives ‘means of expiation’ or ‘atonement’ as the best translation of the term, rejecting a reference to the Day of Atonement, op. cit. p. 296 (see also Forgiveness and Reconciliation, London, 1946, p. 39). H. Moule took ‘the native meaning’ to be ‘price of expiation’ (The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, London, 1896, p. 93n.). K. Barth, with a glance at the etymology of kappōreth, renders ‘covering of propitiation’ (in loc.).
354
James Denney made this point, saying of the reference of įλαστήρoν to the mercy-seat, ‘there are grammatical reasons against this rendering. Paul must have written, to be clear, τò įλαστήρoν ἡμων, or some equivalent phrase. Cf. I Cor. v. 8 (Christ our passover). A “mercy-seat” is not such a self-evident, self-interpreting idea, that the Apostle could lay it at the heart of his gospel without a word of explanation’ (op. cit., p. 611).
oν to the mercy-seat, ‘there are grammatical reasons against this rendering. Paul must have written, to be clear, τò įλαστήρoν ἡμων, or some equivalent phrase. Cf. I Cor. v. 8 (Christ our passover). A “mercy-seat” is not such a self-evident, self-interpreting idea, that the Apostle could lay it at the heart of his gospel without a word of explanation’ (op. cit., p. 611).355
Ant. xvi. 7. 1 .
356
Ant. iii. 6. S.
357
See, for example, De Vit. Mos. ii, 95, 97; De Profug. 19. In De Cherub. 8 there is no such explanation, but here we have the cherubim associated with the įλαστήρoν to make the allusion clear.
oν to make the allusion clear.358
From Jesus to Paul (London, 1946), p. 140, n. 13.
359
‘Gess justly observes that if this type had been familiar to St. Paul, it would have been found elsewhere in his letters; and if it were not so, the term would have been unintelligible to his readers’, F. Godet, in loc.
360
Yom. 5: 3, 4.
361
SB, III, pp. 179ff.
362
Ant. iii. 10. 3.
363
See SB for details.
364
Bible Studies (Edinburgh, 1901), p. 132.
365
The cognate noun πρóθεσς habitually signifies purpose in the New Testament, but not too much can be made of this, for it is also used of the shewbread.
ς habitually signifies purpose in the New Testament, but not too much can be made of this, for it is also used of the shewbread.366
MM favour the idea ‘offered’, ‘provided’, citing an inscription, ‘offering money for the ransom etc.’ and a prescription for fever, ‘Apply a warm bottle to the feet’. This would give excellent sense in the Romans passage, but it has received strangely little attention.
367
Cf Büchsel: ‘In 4 Macc. 17 also it is God who provides the means of atonement and thus saves; only through substitutionary dying, through personal self-offering not through the Temple cultus with its offering of beasts is the community atoned’ (TWNT, III, p. 323). He draws attention also to 1: 11; 6: 28f., and he renders the important part of the latter: ’Make my blood a means of atonement for them and take my soul substitutionarily for their souls’ (ibid., n. 23).
4 Maccabees is generally regarded as more Greek than Hebrew in its outlook, but its community of thought in respect of this incident with the earlier books of Maccabees makes the expression cited important. Hastings Rashdall regards it as ‘highly probable’ that this passage was the source of St. Paul’s ‘thought and expression’ (The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology, London, 1919, p. 132).
368
A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (London, 1881), pp. 50f. Cf. F. Godet: ‘The transition from ver. 17 to ver. 18, indicated by for, can only be this: There is a revelation of righteousness by the gospel, because there is a revelation of wrath on the whole world’ (Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, I, Edinburgh, n.d., p. 164). It is one of the curiosities of modern scholarship that Moffatt renders γάρ here by ‘but’, and that Dodd bases his comment on the mistranslation. Dodd says, ‘The adversative conjunction “but” in i. 18 shows that the revelation of God’s “anger” is contrasted, and not identified, with the revelation of His righteousness’ (op. cit., p. 18). But the conjunction γάρ is not adversative. If, as we must, we substitute ‘illative’ for ‘adversative’ in the first part of Dodd’s statement should we not reverse the positions of ‘contrasted’ and ‘identified’ in his conclusion?
369
‘But the future wrath is certain. A religious man like Paul never doubts this. On the contrary, he is convinced that this delay is a storing up of wrath for the great last day of wrath and those who do not receive punishment for sin now will certainly receive it in full measure then. The contentious, disobedient and unrighteous will receive full retribution from the wrath and anger of God’ (F. V. Filson, op. cit., p. 48).
370
Cf. R. W. Dale: ‘St. Paul’s intention was to demonstrate that the whole world is exposed to the Divine wrath, and that if men are to be saved, that wrath must be somehow averted. That this was his intention, becomes clearer the more rigorous the examination to which the whole argument is subjected’ (The Atonement, London, 1902, p. 232).
371
‘... we propitiate only a person, and expiate only a fact, or act, or thing’ (Forgiveness and Law, London, 1874, p. 83).
372
TWNT, III, p. 323.
373
Op.
cit., p. 323, n. 24.
374
Cf. G. Milligan: ‘it was in the performance of that which was necessary towards God, and not in priestly privileges towards man, that the essence of >Christ’s Priesthood lay’ (The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Edinburgh, 1899, p. 105, n. 3).
375
See above, pp. 147f.
376
Cf. also Sir. 16: 11 where the comment of F. Delitzsch seems to give the sense, ‘The atonement, ἐξλασµóς is the removal of the ὀργή’ (Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, II, Edinburgh, 1887, p. 456).
λασµóς is the removal of the ὀργή’ (Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, II, Edinburgh, 1887, p. 456).377
The accusative is read by *, B, 115, 244, 892, etc., though εἰς ὅν is also found.
*, B, 115, 244, 892, etc., though εἰς ὅν is also found.378
Cf. F. Blass-A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen, 1943), pp. 72f.
379
An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, III (Edinburgh, 1862), pp. 474ff.
380
The Bible and the Greeks (London, 1935), p. 95.
381
Op. cit., p. 94.
382
OP. cit., p. 95.
383
MNTC,
The Johannine Epistles, p. 26.
384
The Epistles of St John (London, 1892), p. 44.
385
Cf. E. Brunner: ‘This revelation of the divine mystery of love in the midst of the reality of wrath is the “propitiation” (ἱλασµóς)’ (op. cit., p. 520).
386
1 Cl. vii. 7, Herm. v. I, 2, 1. The passages are quoted in TWNT, III, p. 315, n.67.
387
Freedom and the Spirit (London, 1944), p. 92.
388
Op. cit., p. 175.
389
L. Pullan, The Atonement (London, 1907), p. 194. Cf. Emil Brunner: ’If we understand it properly it has nothing whatever to do with primitiveness, with naive anthropomorphism. On the contrary, it is the necessary expression of God, taking himself and us seriously. He takes us so seriously that our changed attitude with regard to him produces a change in his attitude towards us.... The term “God’s wrath” therefore means that the breach of communion, which has been made from our side, means also a breach for God. It means that our guilt is guilt in his sight too, that our separation from him is a reality for him too, that his holy will, encountering resistance, becomes in itself resistance: “God resisteth the haughty.” God’s law must not be broken; if we do break it, it will break us’ (The Scandal of Christianity, London, 1951, pp. 77f.).
390
God Was In Christ (London, 1948), p. 189. Similarly T. H. Hughes speaks of ‘the urge or chafing of love’ (The Atonement, London, 1949, p. xxv), and Dr. Maldwyn Hughes refers to the divine anger as ‘nothing else than unquenched and quenchless holy love’ (What is the Atonement? London, n.d., p. 56).
391
See above, p.144.
392
The Death of Christ (London, 1951), p. 152; and similarly Heinrich Vogel says: ‘whoever thinks he can smile at God’s wrath will never praise him eternally for his grace’ (The Iron Ration of a Christian, London, 1941, p. 102). P. T. Forsyth often gives expression to such a thought, as when he says of the love of God: ‘It has been detached from the idea of propitiation with which the Apostles identify it (1 John iv. 10), and regarded as an infinite dilation of human affection (where the real revelation is held to be). Judgment is viewed but as a device of the Father instead of a constituent of His Fatherhood as holy. Little wonder then that love has gone thin in the expansion and lost power. It has ceased in the process to be understood as Holy Love’ (The Justification of God, London, 1948, pp. 85f.).
393
HDCG, I, p. 433.
394
See, for example, Lv. 17 : 11 ; Rom. 3 : 25. For the implication cf. J. G. Simpson : ’All that we can now say is that, when it is the Eternal Son who offers Himself without spot to the Eternal Father, the ethical objection to a propitiatory sacrifice vanishes’ (What is the Gospel? London, 1914, p. 192).
395
‘Greek philosophy had long ago repudiated emphatically the conception common to primitive and popular Greek religion and to the Old Testament. Anger was a weak and discreditable emotion, it taught, in men, and to attribute such an emotion to a divine being was absurd and blasphemous. Deity, every novice in Greek philosophy knew as an axiom, must be apathēs, without disturbing emotions of any kind. The idea of the Divine anger was not something which penetrated into Christianity from its pagan environment: it was something which the Church maintained in the face of adverse pagan criticism’ (Symbolism and Belief, London, 1938, p. 210).
396
From a somewhat different angle Hodgson says: ‘We cannot draw a breath or lift a finger except by our use of that share of His power which He has entrusted to us for our earthly life. How can we be sure, when we use it to sin with, that He continues holy, that He is still there in unsullied perfection, able, when we come to a better frame of mind and repent of our sin, to welcome us back to share in His life of goodness? ... The wrath of God and divine punishment are essential elements in a doctrine which is to face the facts of evil and retain a fundamental optimism. The belief that God has sworn in His wrath that men who do certain things shall not enter into His rest enables the Church to open its worship each day with the words, “Come, let us sing unto the Lord, let us heartily rejoice in the strength of our salvation” ’ (The Doctrine of the Atonement, London, 1951, p. 60).
397
Cf. Bevan, op. cit., p. 246.
398
Op. cit., p. 79.
399
The Atonement (London, 1949), p. 312. Similarly, Vincent Taylor: ‘The best New Testament word to describe the purpose of the Atonement is Reconciliation’ (The Atonement in New Testament Teaching, London, 1946, p. 191).
400
See Forgiveness and Reconciliation (London, 1946), pp. 7of.
401
Cf also Ps. 105 : 20, αὶ ἠλλάξαντο τὴν δóξαν αὐτῶν ἐν ὁµοώµατ µóσχου .τ.λ.
αὶ ἠλλάξαντο τὴν δóξαν αὐτῶν ἐν ὁµοώµατ µóσχου .τ.λ.402
Other uses, of course, arise from this, a common one being ‘to free’ as in Heb. 2 : 15.
403
Büchsel thinks Paul may have coined the word (TWIST, I, p. 259).
404
A Grammar of New Testament Greek, II (Edinburgh, 1919), p. 298.
405
III, p. 519.
406
b R.H. 17b (Soncino trans., p. 70). So also Ber. 31b : ‘R. Eleazar said: From this we learn that one who suspects his neighbour of a fault which he has not committed must beg his pardon; nay more, he must bless him’ (Soncino trans., p. 192).
407
Yoma 87a has much to say about the duty of being reconciled and praises R. Zera for giving opportunities to any who had wronged him to effect reconciliation: ‘When R. Zera had any complaint against any man, he would repeatedly pass by him, showing himself to him, so that he may come forth to (pacify) him’ (Soncino trans., p. 435). The passage then goes on to speak of Abba taking the initiative in seeking reconciliation with a man who had wronged him.
408
Dt. R. 3 : 15 (Soncino trans., p. 84).
409
All these citations are from Nu. R. 12 : 1 (Soncino trans., pp. 448f.).
410
b Taan. 20a (Soncino trans., p. 99).
411
b Yoma 86b (Soncino trans., p. 429).
412
b Ber. 16b-17a (Soncino trans., p. 99).
413
Cant. R. 3 : 11. 1 (Soncino trans., p. 171).
414
Ant. 7 : 184 (Loeb edn. V, p. 459).
415
Ant. 5:137 (Loeb edn. V, p. 65).
416
Ant. 6 : 143 (Loeb edn. V, p. 239). Cf. Büchsel: ‘When God allows it to come about that He gives up His wrath and is gracious again, then one calls this a αταλλαγῆναι of God’ (TWNT, I, p. 254).
αταλλαγῆναι of God’ (TWNT, I, p. 254).417
A similar conclusion might perhaps be drawn from 2 Thes. 3: 15.
418
Christianity According to St. Paul (Cambridge, 1932), pp. 77f.
419
TWNT, II, p. 815.
420
Cf. C. Ryder Smith: ‘The concept of wrath, even when it is regarded as the sequel of justice, seems to revolt the mind of to-day, but it is doubtful whether any theist can escape it. When a theist looks at the world, is he not bound at least to say: “God has made the world in such a way that if men and nations sin, misery befalls them”? ... Where a modern theist says that God has so made the world that if men sin, they suffer, the Biblical writers speak of “the wrath of God”. It is true that, at first sight, there is the difference that the former attributes indirect action to God and the latter direct action, but it is very doubtful whether such a distinction exists for omnipotence, and, in any case, is there any ultimate difference between the two? Both ascribe a certain responsibility to God’ (The Bible Doctrine of Salvation, London, 1946, p. 128).
421
The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (London, 1886), p. 114. He understands ‘enemies’ in Rom. 5: 10 of God’s enemies, and says: ‘By God’s enemies are here meant those who lie under His wrath, and they are reconciled to Him, when that wrath is removed in the remission of sins’ (ibid.).
422
Paulus der Bote Jesu (Stuttgart, 1934), p. 565·
423
Cf. Denney : ‘unless we can preach a finished work of Christ in relation to sin, a xαταλλγή or reconciliation or peace which has been achieved independently of us at an infinite cost... we have no real gospel for sinful men at all’ (The Death of Christ, London, 1951, p. 86). Similarly P. T. Forsyth: ‘Reconciliation was finished in Christ’s death. Paul did not preach a gradual reconciliation. He preached what the old divines used to call the finished work.... He preached something done once for all - a reconciliation which is the base of every soul’s reconcilement, not an invitation only’ (The Work of Christ, London, 1948, p. 86).
424
The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation (London, 1918), p. 239.
425
Forgiveness and Reconciliation (London, 1946), p. 75.
426
Cf. Godet on Romans: ‘The enmity must above all belong to Him to whom wrath is attributed; and the blood of Christ ... did not flow in the first place to work a change in our dispositions Godward, but to bring about a change in God’s conduct toward us’ (Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, I, Edinburgh, n.d., p. 330).
427
Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (London, 1899), pp. ioof.
428
Cf. Denney: ‘It is very unfortunate that the English word reconcile (and also the German versöhnen, which is usually taken as its equivalent) diverge seriously, though in a way of which it is easy to be unconscious, from the Greek xαταλλάσσεν. We cannot say in English, God reconciled us to Himself, without conceiving the persons referred to as being actually at peace with God, as having laid aside all fear, distrust, and love of evil, and entered, in point of fact, into relations of peace and friendship with God. But xαταλλάσσεν, as describing the work of God, or xαταλλαγή, as describing its immediate result, do not necessarily carry us so far. The work of reconciliation, in the sense of the New Testament, is a work which is >finished, and which we must conceive to be finished, before the gospel is preached’ (The Death of Christ, London, 1911, p. 103).
ν. We cannot say in English, God reconciled us to Himself, without conceiving the persons referred to as being actually at peace with God, as having laid aside all fear, distrust, and love of evil, and entered, in point of fact, into relations of peace and friendship with God. But xαταλλάσσεν, as describing the work of God, or xαταλλαγή, as describing its immediate result, do not necessarily carry us so far. The work of reconciliation, in the sense of the New Testament, is a work which is >finished, and which we must conceive to be finished, before the gospel is preached’ (The Death of Christ, London, 1911, p. 103).429
Yet R. H. Strachan can say this wrath ‘must be in the background if we are to see, in these verses, as I think we must, Paul’s expression of what he regarded as the >essential meaning of the Cross of Christ’ (MNTC, 2 Corinthians, p. 116).
430
Christianity According to St. Paul (Cambridge, 1932), p. 84. He adds: ‘This is not all that Paul has to say about the “Atonement,” but it is the heart of it.’
431
The Bible Doctrine of Salvation (London, 1946), p. 218.
432
R. Travers Herford, speaking not of reconciliation in particular, but of Christianity in general, says: ‘Paul grasped the fact that the Christian religion was founded on a Person, not an Idea’ (Judaism in the New Testament Period, London, 1928, p. 227). The comment has relevance to the point we are discussing, for the Christian view of reconciliation is not simply an Idea, such that if a man repents all will be well; it concerns a Person. And the characteristic Christian thought is that reconciliation is wrought by Christ, and is to be found only in Him. ‘God’s reconciliation rested upon this, that on His Eternal Son, who knew no sin in His experience ... sin’s judgment fell’ (P. T. Forsyth, op. cit., pp. 82f.).
433
Cf. Forsyth: ‘The greatest passage which says that God was in Christ reconciling says in the same breath that it was by Christ being made sin for us. The reconciliation is attached to Christ’s death, and to that as an expiation’ (The Cruciality of the Cross, London, 1948, p. 68). J. Scott Lidgett says: ‘Christ enters into our sin, takes it upon Himself, is wrapt in it. He stands for us and with us, as though a sinner, and in that capacity He dies on our behalf’ (The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, London, 1914, p. 42).
434
H. Wheeler Robinson also takes these two verses together saying of the idea of Christ becoming a curse for us in Gal. 3 : 13 : ’This is one of the clearest indications that St. Paul conceived the death of Christ as both substitutionary and penal, its parallel being that of 2 Cor. v. 21, where the Sinless is said to be made sin in our behalf, that we might obtain acquittal and become actually righteous’ (Redemption and Revelation, London, 1942, p. 231).
435
Studies in Theology (London, 1895), p. 112.
436
A. B. Macaulay, The Death of Jesus (London, 1938), p. 174.
437
TWNT, II, p. 212. Similarly L. S. Thornton says of this verse and Gal. 3:13: ’Whatever these mysterious phrases may mean, they certainly put our Lord in the place of sinners’ (The Common Life in the Body of Christ, London, 1950, p. 445).
438
Cf. the passages quoted on p. 230, n.3. From verses 19, 21 Büchsel thinks that ‘the reconciliation includes also justification within itself’(TWNT, I, p. 258).
439
Büchsel comments: ‘Were the woman in such a case to remain completely passive, there would arise no new union, no reconciliation between her and her husband’ (TWNT, I, p. 256). J. Pearson understands ‘be reconciled’ here as ‘appease and get the favour of her husband’ (An Exposition of the Creed, Oxford, 1890, 365, P. 644).
440
Outlines of Christian Doctrine (London, 1892), p.79.
441
The Doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the Atonement (Edinburgh, 1871), p. 67. Cf. also Pearson: ‘in the language of the Scripture to reconcile a man to God, is in our vulgar language to reconcile God to man’ (op. cit., 364, p. 643).
442
εἰρήνη is found 282 times in LXX, the Hebrew being shālôm 192 times (including three verses marked with a query in HR), while 76 times either there is no Hebrew or it is doubtful whether εἰήνη is based on the present text. For the rest it translates beṭaḥnine times (two queries), shqṭ and shlwh once each, while HR include one passage each (queried each time) under hlq, lqḥ and tsḥ. From these figures it is plain that shālôm is the Old Testament equivalent of εἰρήνη.
443
TWNT, II, p. 400.
444
ICC, Galatians, p. 425.
445
For similar thoughts see Is. 26: 2, 3; Ps. 119: 165; Pr. 12:20;Je. 33: 6; Zc. 8: 19; Mal. 2: 6; etc.
446
See pp. 216ff.
447
Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, II (Oxford, 1963), p. 799. The citations following are from this translation.
448
Ant. i. 179.
449
Bell. ii. 135.
450
Ant. vi. 211.
451
De Som. ii. 253.
452
Vit. Mos. i. 304.
453
De Jos. 57.
454
Op. cit., p. 426.
455
Other passages in which peace signifies a tranquillity of mind or soul, and which we should understand as a result of the work of Christ for man in accordance with the accepted Christian position, include Rom. 14: 17; 15: 13; Gal. 5: 22; Eph. 6: 23; 2 Thes. 3: 16; 2 Pet. 3: 14.
456
P. T. Forsyth speaks of ‘peace - by which he (i.e. Paul) meant not calm but the >life-confidence of reconciliation and co-operation with God’ (Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind, London, 1949, p. 111).
457
Cf. Foerster : ’One will not rightly evaluate the passage if one does not see that the law plays a double role, it divides the heathen from the commonwealth of Israel, and Israel from God. Through the law enmity between Jew and heathen stands opposed, and enmity of man and God. Therefore verse 14, αὐτòς ϒὰρ ἐστν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμν, is to be taken in a comprehensive sense: when Christ abolished the law He did away with the double disorder in mankind, that with one another and that against God. εἰρήνη denotes peace with God and peace among mankind, and therewith a comprehensive “order”; a salvation of all relationships’ (TWNT, II, PP. 413f.).
ν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμν, is to be taken in a comprehensive sense: when Christ abolished the law He did away with the double disorder in mankind, that with one another and that against God. εἰρήνη denotes peace with God and peace among mankind, and therewith a comprehensive “order”; a salvation of all relationships’ (TWNT, II, PP. 413f.).458
Grace and Personality (Cambridge, 1919), p. 217.
459
Op. cit., pp. 118f. (Oman’s italics).
460
Op. cit., p. 121.
461
Vincent Taylor objects to ‘the view that reconciliation depends upon man’s humble acceptance of the revelation of God made in Christ’, saying: ‘The real gravamen of the charge is that the attempt to say what the love of Christ does, as distinct from what it reveals, is largely abandoned. Attention is concentrated upon the psychology of man’s response to that which, happily he has observed, rather than upon a work of God in Christ which is wrought on his behalf’ (Forgiveness and Reconciliation, London, 1946, pp. 107f.).
462
‘The thing that has to be dealt with, that has to be overcome, in the work of reconciliation, is not man’s distrust of God, but God’s condemnation of man’ (J. Denney, Studies in Theology, London, 1895, p. 103).
463
The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, London, 1918, p. 238.
464
A Man in Christ (London, 1947), pp. 221f.
465
The Work of Christ (London, 1948), p. 105. In another place he says: ‘The Cross meant more change in God than in man ... Real and thorough religion is theocentric more than anthropocentric’ (The Justification of God, London, 1948, P. 37).
466
Cf. W. Milligan’s comment on sacrifice and reconciliation: ‘The leading or central idea of Sacrifice was not mere pardon of sin, or atonement, or the procuring of the Divine favour, by which the relation of only one of the two parties to the other - that of God to His creature - was affected; while the love of God, contemplated by faith, was simply left to work as a motive of gratitude upon the heart. The relation of both parties to one another was involved in the Sacrifice itself. That act expressed all that was implied, alike for God and Israel, in the restoration of the covenant. It brought both back into a state of mutual reconciliation and fellowship’ (The Resurrection of Our Lord, London, 1884, p. 276).
467
A Handbook of Christian Apologetics (London, 1913), p. 121.
468
Cf. P. T. Forsyth: ‘Our reconciliation is between person and person. It is not between an order or a process on the one hand and a person on the other. Therefore a real and deep change of the relation between the two means a change on both sides. That is surely clear if we are dealing with living persons.... Any reconciliation which only means change on one side is not a real reconciliation at all’ (The Work of Christ, London, 1948, p. 75). Or H. Maldwyn Hughes: ’What the Atonement achieves is a change in the relation of persons, and no such change can be brought to pass without both parties being affected. Reconciliation is necessarily twofold ... when God reconciles us to Himself, our relation to Him, and His relation to us are both set on a new basis’ (What is the Atonement? London, n.d., pp. 20f.).
469
Op. cit., p. 146.
470
The Redemption of Man (London, 1906), pp. 271f.
471
TWNT, I, p. 258.
472
See, for example, the evidence cited by W. K. C. Guthrie, The Greeks and their Gods (Boston, 1956), pp. 123-7.
473
F. Godet goes so far as to say: ‘As to δxαόω, there is not an example in the whole of classic literature where it signifies: to make just’ (Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, I, Edinburgh, n.d., p. 157). J. Morison (Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, London, 1866, pp. 179, 183) and A. Plummer (ICC, St. Luke, p. 208) have similar statements.
xαόω, there is not an example in the whole of classic literature where it signifies: to make just’ (Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, I, Edinburgh, n.d., p. 157). J. Morison (Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, London, 1866, pp. 179, 183) and A. Plummer (ICC, St. Luke, p. 208) have similar statements.474
H. G. G. Herklots even goes as far as to say, ‘He was law’ (A Fresh Approach to the New Testament, London, 1950, p. 18; Herklots’ italics). Cf. P. T. Forsyth, ‘The >holy law is not the creation of God but His nature’ (The Atonement in Modern Religious Thought: A Theological Symposium, London, 1903, p. 79).
475
For the concept of judgment see further my The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment (London, 1960).
476
E.g. Pss. 51: 4; 143: 2; Is. 43 : 9, 26; 50: 8. So also ‘the thoughts of the righteous are judgement’ (Pr. 12: 5). Even a full list of such passages would not tell the whole story, for judgment may be regarded as an integral part of righteousness without any of the righteousness words actually being used (e.g. Zc. 8: 16f.).
477
It is often pointed out that tôrâh is used of priestly instruction (as in Je. 2 : 8 ; 18 : 18 ; Ezk. 7: 26; Ho. 4 : 6; Hg. 2 : 11 ; Mal. 2: 6, 7, 8, 9, etc.). But, though a priestly tôrâh be recognized, it was clearly held to be due not to the priests themselves, but to the Lord (Ho. 4 : 6; Mal. 2: 6ff.).
478
N. H. Snaith distinguishes between tôrâh and mishpāṭ : ‘They are different in that torah, at this early stage, meant an original pronouncement, whilst mishpaṭ meant a decision according to precedent. But both equally are the word of God’ (The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, London, 1944, p. 75). On the other hand J. Pedersen maintains that mishpāṭ is ‘the same as ḥōḳ (the established), tōrā (instruction), miṣwā (tradition)’ (Israel, I-II, London, 1926, p. 351).
479
TWNT, II, p. 178.
480
Op. cit., pp. 72ff.
481
Op. cit., p. 77.
482
HDB, IV, p. 273. Cf. L. Köhler the righteous man ‘means primarily the one who, when accused of a crime, is in a position to prove his innocence,’ Hebrew Man (London, 1956), p. 174.
483
See below, pp. 277ff.
484
The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (London, 1886), p. 62.
485
Mishnah, R.H. i. 2. The times are Passover, Pentecost, New Year, and Tabernacles.
486
See for example b R.H. 17a, b.
487
b Erub. 19a (Soncino trans., p. 129).
488
b Ber. 28b (Soncino trans., p. 173).
489
On this point see SB, IV, pp. 3-19.
490
Ab. ii. 5.
491
TWNT, II, pp. 189,190.
492
The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation (London, 1918), pp. 164f. Again he says: ‘When He pronounces the sinner δί
αιος, he is δίαιος. Before he saw Christ and believed in Him he was all wrong with God: God could do nothing but condemn him. Now, in virtue of his faith, he is all right with God, and there is henceforth no condemnation for him. Nor in all this is there anything unreal, anything akin to legal fiction’ (op, cit., p. 292).
αιος, he is δίαιος. Before he saw Christ and believed in Him he was all wrong with God: God could do nothing but condemn him. Now, in virtue of his faith, he is all right with God, and there is henceforth no condemnation for him. Nor in all this is there anything unreal, anything akin to legal fiction’ (op, cit., p. 292).493
The connection of righteousness with law, quite in the manner of Judaism, might be inferred from statements about sin such as: ‘Where there is no law, neither is there transgression’ (Rom. 4: 15) or ’sin is lawlessness’ (1 Jn. 3:4). On the latter E. A. Knox remarks: ’S. John does not define sin as transgression of a definite command, issuing from authority and revocable by authority, but as lawlessness, antagonism to that principle of law which is of the very essence of the nature of God’ (The Glad Tidings of Reconciliation, London, 1916, p. 127n.).
494
As Burton says, ‘The argument of the sentence is from a Christian point of view a reductio ad absurdum’ (ICC, Galatians, p. 141).
495
On this verse Schrenk says: ’... in opposition to the Jewish conception of merit the διαιοσύνη is seen as a gift which God bestows on him who longs after Him’ (op. cit., p. 200).
αιοσύνη is seen as a gift which God bestows on him who longs after Him’ (op. cit., p. 200).496
ICC, Romans, pp. 24f.
497
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, II (Edinburgh, 1887), p. 433.
498
Cf. L. S. Thornton: ‘The biblical doctrine of justification as exemplified in deutero-Isaiah acquired in St. Paul’s teaching a more specific meaning. Through his act of expiation our Lord made it possible for God to declare us “not guilty”, thus releasing us from Law, Sin and ultimately Death’ (The Common Life in the Body of Christ, London, 1950, p. 56 n. 2) ; and he adds that this ‘includes a vindication of God’s righteousness’.
499
The Bible Doctrine of Salvation (London, 1946), p. 218.
500
Cf. J. Scott Lidgett: ’Thus, for the apostle, the solemnity of the dealing with the Jewish law involved in the death of Christ lay in this, that though its form was Jewish, even governed by the text, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,” yet that Jewish form was the special and peculiar expression of universal principles, and represented a demand and a satisfaction so divine that they are the revelation of the means by which the righteousness of God wrought for the salvation not only of the Jew, but of the world’ (The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, London, 1914, p. 46).
501
In loc. (Owen’s translation).
502
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, II (London and Edinburgh, 1878), pp. 492f.
503
The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology (London, 1919), pp. 91f. The idea of bearing penalty is present in some passages where none of the δίαιος words occurs, for example in Rom. 8: 3, on which Rashdall comments: ‘What can this mean but that in the death of Christ the judgement pronounced against the sin of Adam and his posterity was satisfied?’ (op. cit., p. 93).
αιος words occurs, for example in Rom. 8: 3, on which Rashdall comments: ‘What can this mean but that in the death of Christ the judgement pronounced against the sin of Adam and his posterity was satisfied?’ (op. cit., p. 93).504
St. Paul’s Gospel to the Romans (Oxford, 1949), p. 108.
505
Thus A. Schlatter: ‘He makes His righteousness manifest in us; it forms us within and without, gives us a will and a destiny, makes us one with God’s will and gives us a portion in His life’ (Paulus der Bote Jesu, Stuttgart, 1934, pp. 568f.). The forensic meaning of the verse is well brought out by Rashdall when he says: ‘This can hardly mean anything but that God treated the sinless Christ as if He were guilty, and inflicted upon Him the punishment which our sins had deserved; and that this infliction made it possible to treat the sinful as if they were actually righteous.’ He regards this as one of ‘a few passages which necessarily suggest the idea of substituted punishment or substituted sacrifice. But there they are, and St. Paul’s argument is unintelligible without them’ (op. cit., p. 94).
506
Institutes, II, 16. 6 (trans. Beveridge, I, p. 439).
507
The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (London, 1944), p. 164.
508
Cf. E. A. Knox: ‘Why should he not speak of an imputed righteousness, or of Christ’s righteousness reckoned to him? If Christ lives in him, what should God see in him, of what should God take account in him, but of the living indwelling Christ in all His perfect righteousness?’ (op, cit., p. 74).
509
‘The righteousness which is the content of justification is, according to Paul, neither imputed nor imparted; it is a status conferred, not as had previously been believed, on the ground of merit, but on the ground of faith; and that faith was faith in God particularly as He was revealed in the sacrifice of Christ’ (C. Anderson Scott, Christianity According to St. Paul, Cambridge, 1932, p. 97).
510
The Atonement (London, 1934), p. 62. He goes on to say that justification ‘proceeds upon no legal principle: it is purely an act of grace’.
511
The apostle is, of course, dealing with a hypothetical case, and not laying down the way in which men in point of fact are justified. Elsewhere (Gal. 2: 21 ; 3: 11, etc.) he makes it quite clear that men cannot attain justification by their own efforts in keeping the law.
512
Op. cit., p. 106.
513
In loc.
514
The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (London, 1886), p. 109.
515
See Godet in loc. for a fuller statement of the view adopted here, and in addition to Gifford, Schrenk in TWNT, II, p. 228, for the alternative view. Inter alia the latter says: ‘Because death and resurrection continually occur in the closest connection, because the Crucified is that which He is only since He is at the same time the Risen One, Paul can say both: we are justified through the death of Jesus, and also: He is risen on account of our justification.’
L. S. Thornton comments on this passage: ‘justifying faith is the faith of those “who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” in accordance with Scripture.... Once again our salvation depends, not only upon the substance of what is believed, but also upon the form in which it is believed. Unless our faith with regard to the resurrection of the Christ implies a miraculous work of God like that which is carefully stated in Romans 417-22 our justification is in jeopardy’ (op. cit., p. 278).
516
Op. cit., p. 120.
517
Grace and Personality (Cambridge, 1919), p. 206.
518
Oman, op. cit., p. 221. Cf. also E. Wolf, ‘Justification means deliverance from sin’ (Biblical Authority for Today, ed. A. Richardson and W. Schweitzer, London, 1951, p. 282).
519
Reconciliation and Reality (London, 1919), p. 154.
520
Freedom and the Spirit (London, 1944), p. 351. He goes on to say: ’Even in Orthodoxy the theology of the schools is infected with this idea of justification, although to a lesser degree than in Catholicism. Theological doctrine holds that man is saved by Christ and that he is reconciled to God by the sacrifice of Christ.
‘But if we go into the matter more deeply we shall see that many are not saved by Christ but in Christ, in the new spiritual race which Christ began, in the new nature, and in the new spiritual life. Christ is above all the revelation of this new life, and of the kingdom of God. Justification and salvation are only secondary moments in the path of spiritual progress - a truth which Orthodoxy grasps more easily than Catholicism.’
521
Op. cit., p. 176.
522
Cf. Gustaf Aulén: ‘The will of God, thus revealed in His Law, is nothing but the will of His Love. The Law no less than the Gospel is an expression of His Love’ (Church, Law and Society, New York, 1948, p. 66). ‘Law and Gospel belong together ... they are only different sides of one and the same message’ (op. cit., p. 100).
523
Op. cit., p. 152. H. Bushnell says: ’Consider and make due account then, of the fact, that the eternal law of right, which we cannot well deny is the basis of God’s perfections, and of all law human and divine, is only another conception of the law of love’ (The Vicarious Sacrifice, London, 1866, p. 252: and cf. pp. 187, 254).
524
The Death of Christ, London, 1911, p. 277. So, too, H. Wheeler Robinson: ‘The law of righteousness itself belongs to the divine nature’ (Redemption and Revelation, London, 1942, p. 273).
525
The Resurrection of Our Lord (London, 1894), pp. 140f.
526
The Epistles of St John (London, 1892), p. 39.
527
The Work of Christ (London, 1948), pp. 112f. He also says: ‘The moral law differs from every other law in having a demand, and a universal demand, a claim upon us for ever. And that has to be made good as well as the rents and bruises in us from our own collision with it. It is not a gap that has to be made good and sound. it is a claim, because we are here in a moral and not a natural world. It is one thing to make good a gap and another thing to make good a claim. The claim must be met’ (op. cit., p. 124). Cf. also Hodgson’s remarks about punishment quoted on p. 212 above.
528
The Justification of God (London, 1948), p. 40.
529
The Cruciality of the Cross (London, 1948), pp. 102f., and cf.: ‘God could only justify man before Him by justifying Himself and His holy law before men’ (The Work of Christ, London, 1948, p. 136).
530
The importance of the place of law in God’s manner of working is not obscured by remembering that the New Testament emphasizes that God is Father, for, as J. Scott Lidgett reminds us: ‘Fatherhood is, by necessity, legislative and judicial. The very intensity of its desire to foster the true life of its children forces it to watch them with sleepless vigilance, to lay upon them those laws which promote that life, and to visit their departures from truth and goodness with stem fidelity. So far from true fatherhood being easy-going in these respects, its eye is more searching and its judgment more inflexibly righteous, than those of any judge less nearly concerned in the conduct of those who appear before him’ (op. cit., p. 230).
531
Institutes, II, 16. 5 (trans. Beveridge, I, p. 439).
532
A Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (London, 1866), p. 198.
533
Sometimes it was admitted that the biblical conception of justification was substitutionary, and this aspect of it was rejected. Rashdall says: ‘it is clearly St. Paul’s conception that Christ has paid that penalty in order that man may not have to pay it. It is impossible to get rid of this idea of substitution, or vicarious punishment, from any faithful representation of St. Paul’s doctrine’ (op. cit., p. 92).
534
SJT, I, p. 289. The full quotation is: ‘Christ was crucified because man, confronted by the last things strove to push them out of his way. But here also we are met by the reality of substitution. Man in faith ceases to justify himself. He now looks to Christ as his justification. And his justification is no mere human experience, but an objective reality to which man’s whole existence is related. Justification and substitution stand or fall together.’
535
God in Action (Edinburgh, 1936), p. 123.
536
Op. cit., pp. 16f.
537
Cross and Altar (London, n.d.), p. 110.
538
Redemption and Revelation (London, 1942), p. 23 5.
539
Op. cit., p. 568.
540
The Expositor, Sixth Series, III, p. 449.
541
Atonement and Personality (London, 1924), p. 78.
542
Op. cit., p. 214.