Iii. The Jewish Background
II. THE USE OF ἀπoλύτρωσ
ς
In view of the frequent use of ἀπoλύτρωσς in the New Testament it is necessary to take notice of its use in non-biblical literature, despite the fact that it is a rare word. From its formation we might perhaps anticipate some emphasis on the freedom secured by ransom (‘a ransoming away from - ’). It is difficult, however, to detect such an emphasis in the usage. The word appears to be used in much the same sense as the uncompounded λύτρωσς. The following appear to be all the passages outside the New Testament in which the compound is cited.
ς in the New Testament it is necessary to take notice of its use in non-biblical literature, despite the fact that it is a rare word. From its formation we might perhaps anticipate some emphasis on the freedom secured by ransom (‘a ransoming away from - ’). It is difficult, however, to detect such an emphasis in the usage. The word appears to be used in much the same sense as the uncompounded λύτρωσς. The following appear to be all the passages outside the New Testament in which the compound is cited.1. Plutarch, ‘Their flutes and stringed instruments and drinking bouts along every coast, their seizures of persons in high command, and their ransomings of captured cities, were a disgrace to the Roman supremacy.‘1213 The term clearly denotes the release, upon receipt of a ransom price, of cities which had been captured.
2, 3. The Epistle of Aristeas, ‘Thinking that the time had come to press the demand... for the emancipation of the Jews who had been transported from Judea by the king’s father’; and again, ‘the king ordered a letter to be written to Eleazar on the matter, giving also an account of the emancipation of the Jewish captives.‘13 In both passages the reference is to the release of prisoners of war, and the price is specifically mentioned, ‘all who possess such captives are required to set them at liberty at once, receiving twenty drachmae per head as ransom money.’14
4, 5. Philo twice uses the term. He tells of a Laconian boy carried into captivity who judged that death was a happier lot than his present valueless life, and despairing of ransom, gladly put an end to himself’.15 This is the normal use of the term for release by ransom. Elsewhere he speaks of Abraham’s plea for Sodom (Gn. 18: 23ff.), ‘He begins indeed his supplication with fifty, the number of release, but ends with ten, which closes the possibility of redemption.’16 Here the ten are regarded as the ransom. If the city produced them it was released from its doom. If it failed to produce them it was lost.
6. Josephus, ‘the cost of redeeming them would be more than four hundred talents.‘17 The meaning of the word is plain.
7. Diodorus speaks of a manumission which was agreed upon by a slave and his masters. However, before it could be consummated, Scaevola intervened, and ’anticipating the ransoming ... crucified him’.18 There is not the slightest reason for thinking that this ἀπoλύτρωσς is anything other than the normal release on payment.
ς is anything other than the normal release on payment.8. An inscription from Cos refers to a process of sacral manumission. 19 A doubt has been thrown on the meaning of ἀπoλύτρωσς here because the transaction is described also as an ἀπελευθέρωσς. Those who perform the ἀπελευθέρωσς are instructed ‘not to make formal record of the ἀπoλύτρωσς until the priests have reported that the necessary sacrifice has been made’. Too much, however, should not be read into this. The transaction might be looked at in more ways than one. It was an act of deliverance. The slave went free. Therefore it could rightly be called ἀπελευθέρωσς. But he was not simply set at liberty by a generous gesture of his owner. A price was paid. Therefore the transaction was also an ἀπoλύτρωσς. It could be described loosely and generally, or exactly and specifically. But in view of the fact that there is no dispute about the payment of the price it is impossible to see ἀπoλύτρωσς here as bearing anything other than its normal meaning.
ς here because the transaction is described also as an ἀπελευθέρωσς. Those who perform the ἀπελευθέρωσς are instructed ‘not to make formal record of the ἀπoλύτρωσς until the priests have reported that the necessary sacrifice has been made’. Too much, however, should not be read into this. The transaction might be looked at in more ways than one. It was an act of deliverance. The slave went free. Therefore it could rightly be called ἀπελευθέρωσς. But he was not simply set at liberty by a generous gesture of his owner. A price was paid. Therefore the transaction was also an ἀπoλύτρωσς. It could be described loosely and generally, or exactly and specifically. But in view of the fact that there is no dispute about the payment of the price it is impossible to see ἀπoλύτρωσς here as bearing anything other than its normal meaning.9. The Scholiast on Lucian, in ridiculing the gods, refers to a story in which Zeus took the form of a ram to escape approaching disaster (τoυ
ἐπαναστάντoς o
λέθρoυ), and he goes on to speak of ‘a fatted beast (βo
σ
ημα) as ransom’ for him.20 Again the term is used in normal fashion.
ἐπαναστάντoς oλέθρoυ), and he goes on to speak of ‘a fatted beast (βoσημα) as ransom’ for him.20 Again the term is used in normal fashion.10. There is one occurrence of the term in the LXX, when Nebuchadrezzar says, ‘And at the completion of seven years the time of my redemption came’ (Dn. 4: 30). Some understand ἀπoλύτρωσς here to mean no more than deliverance.21 But in the context it is difficult to maintain this. The king’s words plainly echo those of Daniel in verse 24, ‘pray to him concerning thy sins, and redeem all thy iniquities with almsgivings’. Granted that there is an element of metaphor, what gives it point is that alms are viewed as a kind of price by payment of which the king could redeem himself from the consequences of his sins.
ς here to mean no more than deliverance.21 But in the context it is difficult to maintain this. The king’s words plainly echo those of Daniel in verse 24, ‘pray to him concerning thy sins, and redeem all thy iniquities with almsgivings’. Granted that there is an element of metaphor, what gives it point is that alms are viewed as a kind of price by payment of which the king could redeem himself from the consequences of his sins.No other examples of this noun appear to be cited. From these it is plain that the word has a clear and consistent meaning. In every passage, without exception, there is the payment of a ransom price to secure the desired release.22
III. THE JEWISH BACKGROUND
But it is time we left the Greeks and paid attention to the Jewish background of our word-group. It is a commonplace in much recent work on the New Testament that we must look to Hebraic rather than to Greek roots for the great ideas of the New Testament. I do not think that this can be pressed to such an extent that we ignore Greek usage; hence my examination of the way the Greeks use these terms. But the Old Testament usage is undoubtedly very important, and to that we now turn.
The basic word, λύτρoν, is used in the LXX in a perfectly straightforward fashion. It always denotes a ransom price.23 It is used, for example, of the half shekel to be paid when the census was taken: ‘When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, according to those that are numbered of them, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them’ (Ex. 30: 12). This is not the release of a prisoner of war or a slave. It is a death sentence that is in question. The man’s life is forfeit. But his payment of the half shekel releases him from this sentence and enables him to walk out a free man. This is typical of the λύτρoν passages. The usage is constant. Whenever men perform the act of redemption they do it by paying the price, and this price is denoted by λύτρoν.
The most important word from this word-,group in the LXX is the verb λυτρoω, which occurs 99 times. It is used in the characteristic sense on most occasions, but in addition, a new usage makes its appearance. Sometimes the word is used with God as subject and then there is no ransom price mentioned, nor, indeed, room for any ransom. God does not pay a ransom to men. This is an important group of passages. But it may be best if we approach them by way of the Hebrew words which underlie them. λυτρoω translates in the main two Hebrew verbs, g’l (45 times) and pdh (42 times). No other root is represented more than four or five times.24 λυτρoν introduces another Hebrew root, since it translates ko
pher on six occasions. We examine these Hebrew words in order.
ω, which occurs 99 times. It is used in the characteristic sense on most occasions, but in addition, a new usage makes its appearance. Sometimes the word is used with God as subject and then there is no ransom price mentioned, nor, indeed, room for any ransom. God does not pay a ransom to men. This is an important group of passages. But it may be best if we approach them by way of the Hebrew words which underlie them. λυτρoω translates in the main two Hebrew verbs, g’l (45 times) and pdh (42 times). No other root is represented more than four or five times.24 λυτρoν introduces another Hebrew root, since it translates kopher on six occasions. We examine these Hebrew words in order.a. g’l25
The basic idea in this word-group has to do with family relationship. 26 The word has about it a family air, and this is never quite lost in the various shades of meaning which it ultimately embraces.
We see the basic meaning of the root in passages where the participle is used simply to denote a kinsman, as when we read that Zimri ‘smote all the house of Baasha: he left him not a single man child, neither of his kinsfolks (go’ alayw), nor of his friends’ (1 Ki. 16:11; cf. also Nu. 5: 8; Ru. 2: 20; 3: 9,12). This is the meaning also in Job 3:5, where the patriarch utters his desire that ‘darkness and the shadow of death’ should g’l, i.e. ‘claim as a kinsman’, the day of his birth.
’ alayw), nor of his friends’ (1 Ki. 16:11; cf. also Nu. 5: 8; Ru. 2: 20; 3: 9,12). This is the meaning also in Job 3:5, where the patriarch utters his desire that ‘darkness and the shadow of death’ should g’l, i.e. ‘claim as a kinsman’, the day of his birth.Discharging one’s obligations as a kinsman involved a delightful variety of activities. It might mean marrying the widow of a deceased kinsman (Ru. 3:13), buying one of the family out of slavery (Lv. 25: 48f.), reclaiming a field which has been sold in time of financial distress (Lv. 25: 26), or slaying someone who has murdered a member of the family (Nu. 35: 19, etc.; here we have the ‘avenger of blood’, the kinsman par excellence). When the original owner wanted back again something he had sanctified to the Lord he was said to redeem it (Lv. 27: 13, 15, 19, 20, 27, 28, 31, 33; see also Lv. 27: 28, 33 for certain things which could not be redeemed in this way).
Thus in the Old Testament use of the word we find two distinct ideas. The primary thought is the general one of family obligation, and arising out of this is the narrower concept of the payment of price, of redemption. The transition is an easy one, and the Hebrew term continued to be used for either idea; but the LXX translators made a distinction, for they use only the λύτρoν word-group as a rendering for g’l when a ransom is involved. There is no place where a member of the λύτρoν group translates g’l with a human subject without a ransom being mentioned or implied. g’l may justly be held to involve a family obligation, but it is not this so much as the paying of a redemption price as a consequence of this relationship which the LXX translators seek to express by λυτρoω.
ω.There are some very important passages wherein Yahweh is the subject of the verb g’l. In these we are to think of God as the great Kinsman of His people, to whom they could look for succour in times of distress and, in particular, upon occasions when their liberty was lost or in jeopardy. Pre-eminently is this the case with the rescue of the people from their bondage in Egypt. ‘I am Jehovah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgements: and I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God’ (Ex. 6: 6; see also Ex. 15: 13; Pss. 74: 2; 77: 16(15); 78: 35; 106: 10). This deliverance furnished the pattern for describing the later deliverance from Babylon as a redemption (Ps. 107: 2; Is. 43: 1; 44: 22, 23; 48: 20; 52: 3, 9; 63: 9; Je. 3I: 11; Ho. 13: 14; Mi. 4: 10). It is in exactly similar vein that we have Yahweh spoken of as Redeemer (go’el) thirteen times over in Isaiah 40-66, and the people referred to as ‘the redeemed’ (Ps. 107: 2; Is. 35: 9, etc.). Yahweh’s redemptive activity is not confined to great national deliverances, for we find Jacob invoking ‘the God which hath fed me all my life long unto this day, the angel which hath redeemed me from all evil’ (Gn. 48: 15, 16). Similarly the psalmist thinks of a God who ‘redeemeth thy life from destruction’ (Ps. 103: 4; cf. also Pss. 69: 18; 72: 14; 119: 154).
’el) thirteen times over in Isaiah 40-66, and the people referred to as ‘the redeemed’ (Ps. 107: 2; Is. 35: 9, etc.). Yahweh’s redemptive activity is not confined to great national deliverances, for we find Jacob invoking ‘the God which hath fed me all my life long unto this day, the angel which hath redeemed me from all evil’ (Gn. 48: 15, 16). Similarly the psalmist thinks of a God who ‘redeemeth thy life from destruction’ (Ps. 103: 4; cf. also Pss. 69: 18; 72: 14; 119: 154).It is sometimes argued from all this that the verb has lost its original significance and means simply ‘to deliver’. But this does not seem quite to square up with the facts. Thus, if it were simply a term indicating deliverance, we should expect it to be used now and then of human deliverance without ransom. But such is not the case. Wherever the verb is used with a human subject the deliverance is always by payment of ransom. In other words, the word itself does not come to mean ‘deliver’ rather than ‘redeem with a price’, but it gets this meaning from the fact that Yahweh is its subject.
Examination of the passages in which Yahweh is the subject reveals the interesting fact that in many places the redemption He effects is not regarded as something He performs with effortless ease. Yet in other passages, sometimes not far from the redemption ones, the idea is put forward that all the might of the nations is but a puny thing, a thing of nought, in His sight. But, though they accept this thought, when the Bible writers think of Yahweh as Redeemer they prefer to think of Him as putting forward a strong effort. Thus we read, ‘I will redeem you with a stretched out arm’ (Ex. 6: 6); ‘Thou art the God that doest wonders: Thou hast made known thy strength among the peoples. Thou hast with thine arm redeemed thy people’ (Ps. 77: 14, 15); ‘Enter not into the fields of the fatherless: for their redeemer is strong’ (Pr. 23 : 10, 11); ‘Their redeemer is strong; the Lord of hosts is his name: he shall throughly plead their cause’ (Je. 50: 34). This stress on Yahweh’s effort seems to be the reason for applying the redemption terminology to His dealings. The effort is regarded as the ‘price’ which gives point to the metaphor. Yahweh’s action is at cost to Himself. While He could, so to speak, cope with the situation with a small expenditure of effort, yet because He loves His people He ‘hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations’ (Is. 52: 10).27
b. pdh28
The ground meaning of this root is undoubtedly that of ‘ransom by the payment of a price’, indicating something in the nature of a commercial transaction without any obligation arising from kinship or the like which we have seen to be implied in g’l. A typical use of the verb is found in the passage describing the procedure to be adopted with regard to the first-born, ‘Thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the womb, and every firstling which thou hast that cometh of a beast; the males shall be the Lord’s. And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break its neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy sons shalt thou redeem’ (Ex. 13: 12f.; cf. Nu. 18: 15-17). The first-born belong to the Lord; they should be sacrificed to Him upon the altar. But in certain cases it is permitted, or required, to offer a substitute in lieu of the forfeited life, and this idea of a substitute is basic to pdh. All the other uses may be seen to arise out of this one.
Arising out of Yahweh’s claim to the first-born is the taking of the Levites in the stead of the first-born (Nu. 3: 40ff.). As there were more first-born Israelites than Levites, the excess, numbering 273, were redeemed by a payment of five shekels apiece (Nu. 3: 46.) There can be no doubt as to the substitutionary nature of the transaction, ‘And thou shalt take the Levites for me (I am the Lord) instead of (tahath; LXX ἀντ) all the firstborn among the children of Israel’ (Nu. 3: 41).
) all the firstborn among the children of Israel’ (Nu. 3: 41).It is quite in harmony with this usage that we find the word applied to the redemption of a slave-concubine (Ex. 21:8; Lv. 19: 20). The Exodus passage says that, when a man is displeased with such a concubine, ‘then shall he let her be redeemed’. The contention that this means he shall simply release her seems to be negatived by the alternative way in which she may become free mentioned in verse II where it is expressly said that it is ‘for nothing, without money’.
In many of these cases it is open to the individual concerned to redeem or not as he sees fit. There is no element of obligation, as there would be in g’l (which implies that there is a family duty to be performed). In line with this, anyone at all can perform the redemption indicated by pdh in almost every case, so that this verb may imply an element of grace.29
There are some passages where Yahweh is the subject of the verb. The deliverance from Egypt may be thus described, for example in the reference to ’thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee out of Egypt, from the nations and their gods’ (2 Sa. 7:23; see also Dt. 7: 8; 9: 26; 13: 5; 15: 15; 24: 18; I Ch. 17: 21; Ps. 78: 42, etc.). Redemption from the Exile is not often referred to by this verb (but see Is. 35: 10; 51: 11). There are passages where Yahweh’s redemption is spoken of without any particular occasion being specified, for example, ‘Though I would redeem them, yet they have spoken lies against me’ (Ho. 7: 13; see also Dt. 21: 8; Ne. i: 10; Is. 1: 27 ;Je. 31: 11). Similar are passages referring to redemption from ‘the power of the grave’ (Ho. 13: 14), ‘all his iniquities’ (Ps. 130: 8), ‘all his troubles’ (Ps. 25: 22). There are also places where the verb is used of redemption of the individual (2 Sa. 4: 9; Jb. 5: 20; 33: 28; Pss. 31: 5; 69: 18; 119: 134, etc.).
A superficial reading of these passages might lead to the conclusion that redemption here means nothing more than deliverance. But, as we saw in the case of g’l, there is usually the underlying thought that Yahweh is bestirring Himself on His people’s behalf; it is no ordinary activity that is in mind. Thus the psalmist complains, ‘They remembered not his hand, nor the day when he redeemed them from the adversary. How he set his signs in Egypt, and his wonders in the field of Zoan’ (Ps. 78: 42, 43); Nehemiah prays, ‘Now these are thy servants and thy people, whom thou hast redeemed by thy great power, and by thy strong hand’ (Ne. 1: 10); and David can say, ‘What one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem unto himself for a people, and to make him a name, and to do great things for you, and terrible things for thy land....?’ (2 Sa. 7: 23). Even more impressive than specific quotation is the general implication of many passages that Yahweh was putting forth His mighty power on behalf of those He loved when He redeemed them.
In the face of this evidence it seems impossible to deduce that the word has become a mere synonym for ‘deliver’, though it may well be held that the thought of deliverance is prominent. We must feel that there was a real reason for the choice of this word to describe the divine activity. The Oxford Lexicon says that when Yahweh is the subject there is the ‘underlying thought of payment’, and this seems indeed to be the case. The word indicates deliverance at cost.