V. THE λύτρον WORD-GROUP IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
IV. REDEMPTION IN RABBINIC WRITINGS
All three Hebrew roots that we have seen employed in the Old Testament to express the idea of redemption are employed in much the same way in the Rabbinic literature. Thus g’l is in use for redemption of property (Arak. 9: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) and for things dedicated to the Lord (Arak. 7: 3, 4, 5, etc.). If anything, the use of the term with regard to the deliverances effected by the Lord increases, and we find mention not only of past deliverances such as that from Egypt (e.g. Pes. 10: 6), but also there is frequent mention of a future deliverance when Israel’s troubles will be over. We might cite the seventh of the Eighteen Benedictions as a typical example of this. ’Look but upon our affliction and fight our fight and redeem us speedily for the sake of Thy name: for Thou art a strong redeemer. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the Redeemer of Israel.’36 Here we discern the same idea of cost in the exercise of mighty power that we have already noted in the Old Testament. But it must be admitted that the use of the term tended to become conventionalized, so that it is not always possible to insist upon this. A feature of the usage which cannot fail to have influenced Christian terminology is its association with the Messiah, who is often seen as the great Redeemer of the glorious future.37
pdh is in regular use for redemption of various kinds. Thus it refers to redemption of produce (Men. 10: 4), spoil (Sanh. 10: 6), second tithe (B.M. 4: 8), dedicated goods generally (Arak. 6: 2), goods belonging to the Temple (Meil. 6: 2), animal offerings (Hul. 10: 2). It was also the regular word for ransoming persons, especially prisoners of war, a duty which the Jews rated highly (see Kid. 3: 8; Git. 4: 9; A. Zar. 3: 9; Ket. 1: 2, etc.).
kōpher features largely in certain parts of the Talmud as the technical term for the ransom price which a man must pay to redeem his life when it becomes forfeit after his ox has gored a man (Ex. 21: 30), and in other similar cases. The idea of providing a kōpher for the release of another may lie behind the recurring expression, ‘May I be an atonement for you’, wherein one expresses his readiness to suffer on behalf of another. That the idea of payment for release had penetrated deeply into the Jewish consciousness is shown in the interpretation of Deuteronomy 25: 11f. which, as H. Danby points out, was ‘the basis of the imposition of damages for “indignity”. The penalty “thou shalt cut off her hand” is interpreted to mean, “she shall pay a money-fine” ’.38
It is true that in some Jewish writings the idea of redemption by payment seems to have receded somewhat. Thus Sirach uses the verb λυτρόω five times, and in no case can we say that a payment is necessary, although possibly there is still the idea of God redeeming by the expenditure of effort regarded as a cost (see Sir., 51: 2, 3). But that the words of this group still retained their essential significance is seen, for example, by the frequency with which such a writer as Josephus uses λύτρον for the ransom paid for the redemption of prisoners of war.39 There is an interesting use of the ransom idea in Enoch 98: 10, ‘wherefore do not hope to live, ye sinners, but ye shall depart and die; for you know no ransom’, a passage reminiscent of Psalm 49: 7-9.
To sum up: Judaism, subsequent to the Old Testament, continued to use the three redemption word-groups we found in the Old Testament in much the same manner as the canonical books, while the writers in Greek recall the usage of the LXX, although there is a tendency sometimes to use the words with more emphasis on deliverance than on payment of price. Development there was, and extension of usage in both Greek and Hebrew terms, but the basic thought in most writings continues to be that of deliverance by payment of price.
We see then, that in Greek writings generally, in the Old Testament, and in Rabbinic writers, the basic idea in redemption is the paying of a ransom price to secure a liberation. Circumstances may vary, for the word applies to the freeing of a prisoner of war, or of a man under sentence of death because his ox has gored a man, or of articles in pawn, or of a slave seeking manumission. But always there is the idea of payment of a ransom to secure the desired effect.
When God is the subject of the verb we noticed a difference, for it is inconceivable that He should pay a ransom to men, and in those passages there tends to be a greater stress on the idea of deliverance than on the means by which it is brought about. Yet even here we saw that the Old Testament writers were not unmindful of the meaning of the words they were applying to God’s dealings with His people, for they think of Him as delivering at some cost. Clearly the metaphor was one with point.
V. THE λύτρον WORD-GROUP IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
a. λύτρον
λύτρον is found in the New Testament in one saying only: ’For verily the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many (λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλω
ν)’, (Mk. 10: 45; Mt. 20: 28 is almost identical).
ν)’, (Mk. 10: 45; Mt. 20: 28 is almost identical).The genuineness of the saying has been denied by some, in the face of the fact of its occurrence in Mark, generally admitted to be the oldest of the Gospels, and of the absence of textual doubts. Hastings Rashdall vigorously assails the passage,40 and offers four main objections to its authenticity: (1) The critical words about ransom are absent from Luke 22: 26, 27. (2) The passage has every appearance of being an ecclesiastical or doctrinal gloss. (3) It is irrelevant to its context (this he regards as the strongest objection). (4) It is out of harmony with Christ’s teaching as a whole. As other objectors do not seem to have anything of importance to add to this, we will take Rashdall’s as the case against the passage.
The first point loses its force when we notice that Luke is not reporting the same incident as Mark. The Lucan narrative has to do with a dispute in the upper room as to which of the disciples was to be accounted the greatest; the Marcan refers to the request of the sons of Zebedee for the chief places for themselves. Unless we can be sure that Luke is basing his narrative on that of Mark’s different incident, or on another report of that incident, his employment or omission of the ransom terminology is completely irrelevant to the genuineness of the Marcan passage. It must first be proved that Luke 22: 26, 27 and Mark 10: 45 go back ultimately to the same saying of Jesus, and this has not been done. That there are resemblances between the two is accounted for sufficiently by the likeness between the two occasions.41
R. Bultmann rejects the saying, speaking of it as a ‘well-known dogmatic transformation... the original form of which may well be found in Lk. 22: 27’.42 With respect to the passage, Mark 10: 42-45, he says, ‘the section is made out of an older saying in v. 43f ... a saying which originally referred generally to the greatness of service, was applied especially to the Christian Church in the Christian tradition. To that end it was provided with a foil in Mk. 10: 42 par. and at the end a reference to the example of Jesus was added. Indeed at the end Lk. 22: 27 is doubtless original over against Mk. 10: 45, which has formed its conception of Jesus from the redemption theories of Hellenistic Christianity.‘43 But this is not argument. It is dogmatic assertion. It can carry conviction only to those who are impressed by extreme subjectivity. C. E. B. Cranfield in rejecting the view that the verse is a ‘dogmatic recast ’of Luke 22: 27 ‘made under the influence of Pauline theology’ points out that ‘Lk xxii. 24-7 bears the marks of Gentile-Christian influence, while Mk x. 45 is strongly Palestinian in expression’, and he cites Büchsel and Jeremias in support.44
The second objection is highly subjective, for what appears to be definitely a gloss to one mind may well bear the stamp of authenticity to another.45 Branscomb gives some evidence for the idea of a gloss with his contention that the ransom idea is ‘almost completely absent from the Gospels elsewhere’, and ‘so frequent in Paul’s writings as to account adequately for its expression here’.46 But that the idea is not common in the Gospels need mean only that it is not the central point in Jesus’ teaching about His death; it certainly does not carry the implication that this saying cannot be authentic. The suggestion that the ransom idea is common in the Pauline writings can be received only with qualification. St. Paul never uses the word λύτρον in the extant Epistles, and, while he does make use of the redemption category, it is not as common as some would think, not nearly as common, for example, as is justification. 47 Another small point is that the language used is not what we should have expected in a doctrinal insertion, for the New Testament writers commonly use such expressions as ‘the blood’ or ‘the death’ of Christ, rather than referring to the offering of life.
But Rashdall regards the next point as the strongest objection, and we give it in his own words: ‘Our Lord has been speaking of His death as a kind of service - a service which His disciples were to imitate. There is a sudden transition to a different order of ideas - which is then immediately dropped and in no way followed up or explained.’48 But, in the first place, this is to demand in the words of Jesus a sense of rigid logic which is foreign to the atmosphere of the Gospels, and can be insisted upon only rarely if at all; and, in the second, the statement in the form given by Rashdall cannot stand, for our Lord has not been speaking of His death as a kind of service. He has been speaking of the necessity for humble service on the part of the disciples; ‘whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all’. This He drives home by an appeal to His own purpose in coming to earth, namely that He might minister to others and ransom them at the cost of His life. If Jesus thinks of His death as service it does not seem illogical that He should explain, if only briefly, in what the service consisted, i.e. in being a ransom for many. The words about ransom may not be required by the immediately preceding words, but they follow on quite naturally.
A variation on the argument from context is that since the passage speaks of service any action here ascribed to Jesus must be such as can be emulated by His followers. Thus E. P. Gould likens the death of Jesus to that of the martyrs,49 and Rashdall denies that there is anything to suggest that the benefit procured by the death of Christ ‘was anything sui generis - different in kind from the benefit which the sufferings of other righteous men might obtain for them, or that the way in which it was to operate was by constituting an expiatory or substitutionary sacrifice’.50 But such interpretation seems to lean too heavily on the context. For, after all, the context of a saying, while undoubtedly important, can indicate only in a general way the drift of the saying; it cannot finally determine its meaning in detail. Moreover in this case there seems to be a tendency to undue limitation. If the death of Jesus is sui generis that does not mean that there are no aspects in which it can be imitated. There seems no particular reason why our Lord should not have directed the attention of the disciples to the aspects of self-abnegation and of service to others which are seen in His death, and then have gone on to indicate also that the supreme service lay elsewhere.
The objection that the ransom saying is out of harmony with the teaching of Jesus as a whole does not seem tenable these days, if only because there is considerable agreement that Jesus saw in the prophecy of the suffering servant a picture of His vocation. If He thought of His mission as in any way comparable to that described in Isaiah 53,51 then, clearly, it is congruous to refer to it as a process of ransom. There are other relevant considerations, such as the repeated predictions of His death by Jesus, and the whole attitude that finally led to Calvary, so that this objection cannot be said to have any great weight.
Thus none of the objections urged against the saying can be said to be decisive. It may be true, as W. Manson says, that ‘It is not in our power to prove the authenticity of any word which tradition has ascribed to Jesus’.52 Yet at the very least we can say, in the words of the same scholar, ‘it will not do to pronounce it impossible or unlikely that Jesus, who saw his work and teaching to be fraught with critical significance for his nation, should think of his sacrifice in terms of an ’asham for many, as completing and consummating the work - the conversion and redemption of the many - which he had sought by his life to effect.’53 Most of us will feel that the authenticity of the ransom saying is as well established as the facts of the case make possible.
We now turn to the meaning of the terms used. We have seen that λύτρον in the LXX consistently denotes the payment of a ransom price substitutionary in character, and the same we saw to be true almost universally outside the Bible. While it is not impossible for the word to be used in a metaphorical sense, it should nevertheless be recognized that this is rather unusual, and we are justified in demanding the strongest of evidence to remove a substitutionary meaning from a passage containing it.54 In this case, so far from the context removing the substitutionary meaning, it actually reinforces it.
Scholars who have gone into the Semitic background of the ransom saying bring further evidence for the substitutionary conception, whether we regard the Semitic equivalent for λύτρον in this passage as pidhyōn with G. Dalman,55 or as kōpher with O. Procksch.56 For Dalman understands ransom as ‘substitute for the forfeited life’, and Procksch speaks of a substitution-idea (Stellvertretungsgedanke ) ‘which is always given with kōpher’,57 and again he says that by the equation kōpher = λύτρον there is always meant ‘a substitutionary-offering for a human life’.58
The preposition ἀντί characteristically has the meaning ‘in the place of’, ‘instead of’, whether in the classics or in the 
ο
νή.59 This remains true for biblical Greek, and H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey draw attention to LXX passages such as ‘and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of (ἀντί) his son’ (Gn. 22: 13), ‘Let thy servant, I pray thee, abide instead of (ἀντί) the lad a bondman to my lord’ (Gn. 44: 33), and ‘I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of (ἀντί) all the first-born’ (Nu. 3: 12). This usage they point out is continued in the New Testament; and they cite the statement that Archelaus reigned instead of (ἀντί) Herod (Mt. 2: 22), and the following phrases: ‘and he for (ἀντί) a fish give him a serpent’ (Lk. 11: 11), ‘for her hair is given her for (ἀντί) a covering’ (1 Cor. 11:15), ‘Jesus ... who for (ἀντί) the joy that was set before him endured the cross’ (Heb. 12: 2).60 There are other passages which Dana and Mantey do not mention where the translation ‘instead of’ is more difficult, as in the ‘evil for evil’ passages (Rom. 12: 17; 1 Pet. 3: 9; 1 Thes. 5: 15); though Büchsel would render the word even here by ‘anstatt’61 or where ἀνθ’ ὧν or ἀντὶ τούτου are found. But when full allowance has been made for passages of this sort it still remains that the most common meaning of the preposition, both inside the New Testament and out, is ‘instead of’ or ‘in exchange for’.
ονή.59 This remains true for biblical Greek, and H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey draw attention to LXX passages such as ‘and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of (ἀντί) his son’ (Gn. 22: 13), ‘Let thy servant, I pray thee, abide instead of (ἀντί) the lad a bondman to my lord’ (Gn. 44: 33), and ‘I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of (ἀντί) all the first-born’ (Nu. 3: 12). This usage they point out is continued in the New Testament; and they cite the statement that Archelaus reigned instead of (ἀντί) Herod (Mt. 2: 22), and the following phrases: ‘and he for (ἀντί) a fish give him a serpent’ (Lk. 11: 11), ‘for her hair is given her for (ἀντί) a covering’ (1 Cor. 11:15), ‘Jesus ... who for (ἀντί) the joy that was set before him endured the cross’ (Heb. 12: 2).60 There are other passages which Dana and Mantey do not mention where the translation ‘instead of’ is more difficult, as in the ‘evil for evil’ passages (Rom. 12: 17; 1 Pet. 3: 9; 1 Thes. 5: 15); though Büchsel would render the word even here by ‘anstatt’61 or where ἀνθ’ ὧν or ἀντὶ τούτου are found. But when full allowance has been made for passages of this sort it still remains that the most common meaning of the preposition, both inside the New Testament and out, is ‘instead of’ or ‘in exchange for’.The force of this is occasionally denied.62 It may be freely granted that now and then ἀντί is used in such a way as not to imply substitution. Matthew 17: 27 is such a case, and H. Wheeler Robinson appeals to this passage in support of his contention that ‘The preposition anti means simply “for” ’.63 But it cannot be too strongly insisted that to determine the meaning of a word we must take it in its habitual sense and not fasten our attention on unusual cases (here on one case only). If the term is to be emptied of substitutionary force in the ransom saying this will be done, not by showing that in unusual circumstances ἀντί may occur without stress on substitution, but only by bringing forward reasons for thinking that this passage uses the term in an unusual way. But in point of fact its use is perfectly normal, and there seems no reason for disputing the conclusion reached by Dana and Mantey when they say that, in the ransom saying, ἀντί must mean either ‘instead of’ or ‘in exchange for’, and ‘each implies substitution’. They add, ‘The obscurity of this
passage is not the result of linguistic ambiguity, but of theological controversy’.
64
But in any case even if, with Wheeler Robinson, we take the substitutionary meaning out of the preposition, we have not taken it out of the passage, for the situation envisaged is one in which the many are condemned, their lives are forfeit. If Jesus gives His life ‘a ransom for many’ and thereby they are released from their condemnation, then a substitutionary transaction has taken place, understand the individual words as we will.65
The expression λύτρον ἀντί can be paralleled from Josephus who says, with reference to the visit of Crassus to the Temple, that a priest named Eleazar, seeing the Roman intent on plundering the sanctuary, gave him a bar of gold, λύτρον ἀντὶ πάντων.66 There can be no doubt but that here a substitutionary meaning is to be attached to the expression - the bar of gold was to be a substitute for the treasures of the Temple. It is true that we are dealing in this situation with inanimate objects, but otherwise the saying is closely parallel to that in the Gospels, and it gives a presumption in favour of the substitutionary meaning.
Thus we have seen that there is no substantial reason for doubting the authenticity of the passage, and that the words, taken at their face value, contain a substitutionary meaning, indicating the offering of life for life quite in the style of Leviticus 27: 11.67 H. B. Swete comments, ’The Lord contemplates a λύτρον which is ψυχὴ ἀντὶ ψυχης (Lev. xxiv. 18), His own ψυχή (xiv. 3 4) given as a ransom for the ψυχαί of men.’68
ς (Lev. xxiv. 18), His own ψυχή (xiv. 3 4) given as a ransom for the ψυχαί of men.’68The force of the passage is sometimes evaded even by those who feel the force of the language. Thus Büchsel correctly gives the sense of the ransom saying: ‘The ransom saying in any case includes a substitutionary concept. For one might interpret ἀντί as “in place of” or “for the benefit of”: when Jesus gives Himself in death there happens to Him what should happen to the many, He stands in their place. The saying clearly looks back to Mk. 8. 37, Mt. 16. 26.’69 Yet later he denies any objective equivalence between the death of Jesus and that which the many owe, and proceeds: ‘The equivalence for God is to be sought in this, that Jesus’ giving of life is the proof of His complete obedience, and as such, as power in mankind, overcomes sin.’70 It is not called in question that Jesus’ death is the proof of His full obedience to the Father, nor that this is important for the understanding of the atonement. But the point is that the passage does not say this. It cannot be derived thence by exegesis. The point of the saying is not that Jesus was obedient, and that this obedience is what benefits sinners, but that the life of Jesus was given up to ransom them.
The language used rules out minimizing interpretations such as those of Gould and Rashdall, as C. G. Montefiore recognizes. Though he rejects the ransom saying he gives its meaning thus: ‘It is true that to give your life for others is the highest possible service (McNeile), but the word “lutron” seems to imply something more. Cp. 4 Mace. vi. 29, xviii. 22, i. 11, 2 Macc. vii. 37. God somehow makes the death of Jesus help in the salvation of others. It is in this more special sense that Jesus gives his own life for the sake of many lives.‘71 While I am not satisfied that this fully explains the passage, it recognizes that the interpretations we have been discussing will not fit the words used. As with λύτρον so with ἀντί;72 both imply substitution, and we must interpret the passage in a highly unnatural manner if we are to overlook this. Again, the aorist tenses ‘indicate that the allusion is not to a lifelong sacrifice but to one definitive act of self-surrender’,73 and this may be of importance. Finally, it is not seriously disputed that the critical words evoke memories of Isaiah 53 and of the servant who suffered for many, and in this Old Testament passage the thought of substitutionary suffering is plain.74
To bring this discussion to a close: the natural meaning of the ransom saying is that Jesus’ death was in the stead of the many, He was to give His life instead of their lives,75 and we see no reason for abandoning this interpretation. It may or may not be easy to integrate this into some theory of the way the atonement works, but either way we are not justified in evading the plain sense of the Greek.76
b. λυτρόω
The first λυτρόω passage in the New Testament is the conversation on the way to Emmaus, where the two disciples say, with reference to Jesus, ‘we hoped that it was he which should redeem Israel’ (Lk. 24: 21). They are clearly using ‘redeem’ in the typically Jewish manner of the long awaited intervention by Almighty God, when His power would free His people from all their enemies and bring in a period of blessing and prosperity. The passage is not of first importance for our purposes. Obviously a redemption rendered impossible by the cross can tell us little about the redemption effected by the cross.
In Titus 2: 14, however, we have a specifically Christian reference to redemption. Christ, we read, ‘gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity’. The fairly obvious reference to the ransom saying (Mk. 10: 45) points in the direction of substitution, and this is supported by the general usage of λυτρόω and by the specific mention of the ransom price (’gave himself’).
Even clearer is the remaining passage where the price of our redemption is given as ‘the precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ’ (1 Pet. 1: 18f.). The contrast with such prices as ‘gold or silver’ means that there is no possibility of missing the reference to a normal process of redemption.77
It seems clear that only special pleading can rid these two passages of the thought of a ransoming. In each case we find the price mentioned and an evil condition from which the ransoming has freed us. There is a substitutionary thought, for it is Christ, not the sinners, who has paid the price, so that He is acting in their stead in His redeeming death.
c. λύτρωσς
λύτρωσς like λυτροώ occurs three times in the New Testament (Lk. 1: 68; 2: 38 and Heb. 9: 12). In the two Lucan passages it is used in the Jewish sense, just as we have seen is the case with λυτρόω in Luke 24: 21. Neither of these passages is of great importance for our present purpose.
ς like λυτροώ occurs three times in the New Testament (Lk. 1: 68; 2: 38 and Heb. 9: 12). In the two Lucan passages it is used in the Jewish sense, just as we have seen is the case with λυτρόω in Luke 24: 21. Neither of these passages is of great importance for our present purpose.When we turn to Hebrews 9: 12 we find ourselves in a different sphere of thought altogether. Christ is pictured as a High Priest who, not ‘through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption’, which brings us into the realm of sacrifice. But the sacrificial conception is blended with that of redemption, and ‘his own blood’ must be regarded as indicating the price of redemption, as well as pointing to the sacrificial process (cf. I Pet. I: 18, 19 for this blending of the sacrificial with the redemptive concept).
It may be well to notice here that, although the writer to the Hebrews does not speak often of redemption, yet the thought of cost to Christ in the securing of our salvation is one which is frequently met with in the Epistle. Perhaps this is nowhere more forcefully put than in the reference to Him ‘who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death ... learned obedience by the things which he suffered’ (Heb. 5: 7f.). This passage, referring primarily to the agony in Gethsemane,78 brings out strongly the cost element in the process of salvation. Our redemption was not purchased cheaply. This thought is to be discerned in the statement that ‘it became him ... in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect ?>through sufferings’ (Heb. 2: 10). Again, there is the thought that erifier la mise en indice - "?>Christ suffered through temptation (Heb. 2: 18; and see 4: 15), ir si pas fermante plutot - Verifier la mise en indice - "?>and it is said that He ‘suffered without the gate’ (Heb. 13 : 12). In similar vein are passages stressing the humiliation of the incarnation ; He was made lower than the angels for the tasting of death (Heb. 2 : 9), He endured the cross despising its shame, and again, He endured the gainsaying of sinners (Heb. 12: 2, 3). Thus from many directions we see a stress laid on the cost of our salvation, and this should be borne in mind in estimating the writer’s thought on redemption. Even when he is not using that exact term, he has the idea of cost that it denotes.
d. άπολύτρωσς
άπολύτρωσς is a very rare word, there being, as far as I have been able to ascertain, only ten examples of its use outside the New Testament. Its structure could well give the thought of a ‘ransoming away’ with a corresponding emphasis on the result, the effective deliverance, rather than the mode whereby this is brought about, as Chrysostom notes.79 But this cannot be pressed; for on the one hand we have the well-known fondness for compounded forms which characterizes the ονή writers, and on the other λύτρω
ς may be used for the most effective deliverance. It is used, for example, of ‘eternal redemption’ (Heb. 9: I2), which is as final as is possible. Moreover the actual usage of άπολύτρωσς shows ‘ransoming’ rather than ‘deliverance’ to be the essential meaning of the word. In an earlier section we examined all the non-biblical passages in which the word occurs, and on each occasion we found that it signifies a process of obtaining release by payment of ransom (a process indicated also in almost every occurrence of the corresponding verb άπολυτρóω). This creates a presumption that in the New Testament it will continue to signify such a process.
ς is a very rare word, there being, as far as I have been able to ascertain, only ten examples of its use outside the New Testament. Its structure could well give the thought of a ‘ransoming away’ with a corresponding emphasis on the result, the effective deliverance, rather than the mode whereby this is brought about, as Chrysostom notes.79 But this cannot be pressed; for on the one hand we have the well-known fondness for compounded forms which characterizes the ονή writers, and on the other λύτρως may be used for the most effective deliverance. It is used, for example, of ‘eternal redemption’ (Heb. 9: I2), which is as final as is possible. Moreover the actual usage of άπολύτρωσς shows ‘ransoming’ rather than ‘deliverance’ to be the essential meaning of the word. In an earlier section we examined all the non-biblical passages in which the word occurs, and on each occasion we found that it signifies a process of obtaining release by payment of ransom (a process indicated also in almost every occurrence of the corresponding verb άπολυτρóω). This creates a presumption that in the New Testament it will continue to signify such a process.The paucity of the occurrences of άπολύτρωσς in literature generally is somewhat in contrast with the New Testament where it appears as the typical term for redemption. There it occurs ten times as against nine times for all the other words from the same root put together. This is in contrast, too, with the usage of the LXX where άπολύτρωσς occurs but once, and that in a passage where there is no corresponding Hebrew word in the Massoretic Text. At the same time λυτρóομα, which is the characteristic representative of this family in the LXX with its ninety-nine occurrences, is found but three times in the New Testament, and one of these is not in the specifically Christian sense. This difference in terminology is not always noticed, and it is difficult to account for. We have noted in the section on the LXX that the usage there is a little away from the general run of Greek literature, in that we have a number of passages (with God as the subject) where λυτρóομα, etc., are used without a ransom being expressly implied. Accordingly it is just possible that the New Testament writers felt that the LXX usage was not quite what they wanted when they wished to express the redemption idea. Whether that is the explanation or not, it is beyond dispute that the terminology is different, and, therefore, to assume that the New Testament follows the LXX, as some writers do, is not justified. The New Testament must be allowed to speak for itself.
ς in literature generally is somewhat in contrast with the New Testament where it appears as the typical term for redemption. There it occurs ten times as against nine times for all the other words from the same root put together. This is in contrast, too, with the usage of the LXX where άπολύτρωσς occurs but once, and that in a passage where there is no corresponding Hebrew word in the Massoretic Text. At the same time λυτρóομα, which is the characteristic representative of this family in the LXX with its ninety-nine occurrences, is found but three times in the New Testament, and one of these is not in the specifically Christian sense. This difference in terminology is not always noticed, and it is difficult to account for. We have noted in the section on the LXX that the usage there is a little away from the general run of Greek literature, in that we have a number of passages (with God as the subject) where λυτρóομα, etc., are used without a ransom being expressly implied. Accordingly it is just possible that the New Testament writers felt that the LXX usage was not quite what they wanted when they wished to express the redemption idea. Whether that is the explanation or not, it is beyond dispute that the terminology is different, and, therefore, to assume that the New Testament follows the LXX, as some writers do, is not justified. The New Testament must be allowed to speak for itself.When we turn to the ten occurrences of the term άπολύρως in the New Testament we find that the price is expressed three times and implied twice, on three occasions a future redemption with a certain eschatological significance is referred to, on one occasion the reference is perfectly general and there is one passage referring to a non-Christian redemption. Some writers (e.g. Büchsel, Abbott) make their point of departure one or other of the exceptional cases, but since we have seen a perfectly uniform usage outside the New Testament it would seem preferable to deal first of all with passages which conform to this general scheme.
ς in the New Testament we find that the price is expressed three times and implied twice, on three occasions a future redemption with a certain eschatological significance is referred to, on one occasion the reference is perfectly general and there is one passage referring to a non-Christian redemption. Some writers (e.g. Büchsel, Abbott) make their point of departure one or other of the exceptional cases, but since we have seen a perfectly uniform usage outside the New Testament it would seem preferable to deal first of all with passages which conform to this general scheme.The three clearest passages are Romans 3: 24, Ephesians I : 7 and Hebrews 9: 15. There has been discussion about each of these, of course, and it would be an overstatement to say that there is a generally accepted conclusion in any one of them. Nevertheless it is a fact that there is a redemption price mentioned in each case, and accordingly, unless the strongest of reasons can be put forward, we must conclude that here again we have the typical usage of the word-group.
In Ephesians I: 7 we read of Christ, ‘in whom we have the redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his grace ...’ One would have thought that ‘redemption through his blood’ is a plain enough indication of the payment of a ransom price, but we find, for example, T. K. Abbott disputing this. He says, rightly, that the verb άπολυτρóω ‘signifies properly, not “to redeem” (λυτροῡθα), but to release on receiving a ransom‘(though he should have noted that άπολυτροῡθα as well as λυτροῡθα, means ‘to redeem’). But when he goes on to consider the derived noun άπολύτρως, he cites a number of instances apparently to show that it is used to take up the sense of the active80 and not of the middle, and says: ‘As far as usage goes, then, it would seem that if we are to attach to άπολύτρωσς the idea of ransom, the word will mean “holding to ransom” or “release on receipt of ransom,” not “payment of ransom.” ’
θα), but to release on receiving a ransom‘(though he should have noted that άπολυτροῡθα as well as λυτροῡθα, means ‘to redeem’). But when he goes on to consider the derived noun άπολύτρως, he cites a number of instances apparently to show that it is used to take up the sense of the active80 and not of the middle, and says: ‘As far as usage goes, then, it would seem that if we are to attach to άπολύτρωσς the idea of ransom, the word will mean “holding to ransom” or “release on receipt of ransom,” not “payment of ransom.” ’But this is in error. To begin with, the derived noun can just as well take up the sense of the middle as the active,81 and there is no particular reason for thinking that the active will be favoured. Then, incredibly, Abbott has not subjected his examples to a sufficiently, close scrutiny, for the passage he cites from Philo is clearly a case of the middle sense. When Philo says άποΥνοὺς άπολύτρωσν ἁμενος έαντòν δεχρήατο the meaning plainly is ‘despairing of ransoming he cheerfully slew himself’. It cannot possibly mean ‘despairing of holding to ransom’, because it is himself that is to be ransomed, not someone in his power. A similar criticism must be made of Abbott’s failure to notice that ó χρóνος μου τῆς άπολυτρώσεως ᾖλθε (Dn. 4: 30) also bears witness to the release by payment of ransom82 rather than by receiving ransom. Nebuchadrezzar was not holding anyone to ransom, but was referring to his own release from trouble when he used the words, and thus the sense is definitely that of the middle. Abbott also cites Diodorus Siculus, who says that, after a certain slave had agreed with his owners for his manumission, Scaevola intervened, ϕθάσας τὴνάπολύτρωσν ... άνεσταύρεν.83 The meaning of άπολύτρων here is doubtful. It makes quite good sense, as Abbott suggests, to understand ‘anticipating release on receipt of ransom’, i.e. interpreting άπολύτρων from the point of view of the owners. But it can also be understood quite well in this context from the point of view of the slave, ‘anticipating release by paying ransom’. The most that can be said is that this passage is congruous with the former meaning; it certainly does not establish it. The difficulty in determining which meaning is the correct one is illustrated by the fact that Abbott seems to take a passage in Josephus84 in the sense of the active, while Warfield85 takes the same passage in the sense of the middle. Occurrences not treated in Abbott include the two references in the Letter of Aristeas, both of which are probably in the middle sense, and the inscription from Cos dealing with a slave’s manumission where, again, the middle gives good sense.86
ν ἁμενος έαντòν δεχρήατο the meaning plainly is ‘despairing of ransoming he cheerfully slew himself’. It cannot possibly mean ‘despairing of holding to ransom’, because it is himself that is to be ransomed, not someone in his power. A similar criticism must be made of Abbott’s failure to notice that ó χρóνος μου τῆς άπολυτρώσεως ᾖλθε (Dn. 4: 30) also bears witness to the release by payment of ransom82 rather than by receiving ransom. Nebuchadrezzar was not holding anyone to ransom, but was referring to his own release from trouble when he used the words, and thus the sense is definitely that of the middle. Abbott also cites Diodorus Siculus, who says that, after a certain slave had agreed with his owners for his manumission, Scaevola intervened, ϕθάσας τὴνάπολύτρωσν ... άνεσταύρεν.83 The meaning of άπολύτρων here is doubtful. It makes quite good sense, as Abbott suggests, to understand ‘anticipating release on receipt of ransom’, i.e. interpreting άπολύτρων from the point of view of the owners. But it can also be understood quite well in this context from the point of view of the slave, ‘anticipating release by paying ransom’. The most that can be said is that this passage is congruous with the former meaning; it certainly does not establish it. The difficulty in determining which meaning is the correct one is illustrated by the fact that Abbott seems to take a passage in Josephus84 in the sense of the active, while Warfield85 takes the same passage in the sense of the middle. Occurrences not treated in Abbott include the two references in the Letter of Aristeas, both of which are probably in the middle sense, and the inscription from Cos dealing with a slave’s manumission where, again, the middle gives good sense.86It does not seem possible, then, to maintain Abbott’s position. The undisputed instances of άπολύτρως in the sense of ‘holding to ransom, release on receipt of ransom’ are reduced to the passage he cites from Plutarch, while all the other examples can bear the sense of ‘release by payment of ransom’, and some positively demand it. This being so, there remains no obstacle to interpreting Ephesians I: 7 in the natural way. The passage refers to Christ’s redemption of believers through the price of His blood. Perhaps we may find a clue to the right interpretation in the passage from Romeo and Juliet which Abbott adduces, ‘Before the time that Romeo come to redeem me’. Here unquestionably the word means ‘deliver’ and there is no thought of payment of price. Equally unquestionably it is not the normal English usage. The passage can be understood, but it is not a reliable guide to the understanding of the English verb. So is it with the idea of redemption in Greek. The basic meaning of the root is concerned with release by payment of a price, and while a metaphorical usage may appear it cannot be regarded as the standard. The price-paying conception is still in the background and it is this that gives force to the metaphor.
ς in the sense of ‘holding to ransom, release on receipt of ransom’ are reduced to the passage he cites from Plutarch, while all the other examples can bear the sense of ‘release by payment of ransom’, and some positively demand it. This being so, there remains no obstacle to interpreting Ephesians I: 7 in the natural way. The passage refers to Christ’s redemption of believers through the price of His blood. Perhaps we may find a clue to the right interpretation in the passage from Romeo and Juliet which Abbott adduces, ‘Before the time that Romeo come to redeem me’. Here unquestionably the word means ‘deliver’ and there is no thought of payment of price. Equally unquestionably it is not the normal English usage. The passage can be understood, but it is not a reliable guide to the understanding of the English verb. So is it with the idea of redemption in Greek. The basic meaning of the root is concerned with release by payment of a price, and while a metaphorical usage may appear it cannot be regarded as the standard. The price-paying conception is still in the background and it is this that gives force to the metaphor.The occurrence of ἂϕεσν in apposition with άπολύτρων does not really alter this seriously, for it indicates no more than that there were many ways of looking at the work of Christ and that no one way was by itself satisfactory. We have already had occasion to notice that in some passages there is a conjunction of references to redemption and sacrifice (e.g. Heb. 9 : 12 ; I Pet. I: 18, 19) and here we have a similar conjunction of redemption and forgiveness.87
ν in apposition with άπολύτρων does not really alter this seriously, for it indicates no more than that there were many ways of looking at the work of Christ and that no one way was by itself satisfactory. We have already had occasion to notice that in some passages there is a conjunction of references to redemption and sacrifice (e.g. Heb. 9 : 12 ; I Pet. I: 18, 19) and here we have a similar conjunction of redemption and forgiveness.87Another attempt to evade the force of the passage is by referring τὴν άπολύτρωνhere to the final eschatological deliverance. But even if this were the right interpretation of the passage it would not empty άπολύτρωσν of its force. Rather it would emphasize that redemption, even the final eschatological redemption, is dependent on the price paid on Calvary. The time when the redemption takes full effect does not seem to have any real bearing on the presence or otherwise of the implication of a ransom price.
νhere to the final eschatological deliverance. But even if this were the right interpretation of the passage it would not empty άπολύτρωσν of its force. Rather it would emphasize that redemption, even the final eschatological redemption, is dependent on the price paid on Calvary. The time when the redemption takes full effect does not seem to have any real bearing on the presence or otherwise of the implication of a ransom price.But is there any real reason for understanding this passage in an eschatological sense? It would seem not. The writer uses the present tense (ἒχομεν) and appears to be thinking of a redemption already brought about so that it is the present possession of the believer. There is no more reason for thinking that redemption here signifies something in the far future than there is for understanding remission of sins (to which it is joined) in the same way. It is, of course, true that redemption has a final aspect, and that we cannot regard our redemption as fully consummated here and now. Its final perfection must await the advent of the Lord. But it is just as true that the New Testament does not regard redemption as something that is only in the future (cf. ‘ye were redeemed’, I Pet. I : 18), and it is redemption as the present possession of the believer which occupies the attention of the writer here.
Romans 3: 24 comes in a context which presents difficult problems, but as far as άπολύτρως is concerned the meaning seems to be clear. Paul is here making use of the redemption metaphor again, and once more we have the price mentioned in the context, though in this case it is not formally joined to άπολύτρως. ‘Being justified freely by his grace,’ says the apostle, ‘through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood ...’ It is true that ‘his blood’ is more directly connected here with propitiation than with redemption, but there can be no doubt that there is also an indirect glance at the price paid, so that Moffatt is justified when he translates άπολυτρώσεως by ‘ransom’. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam come to a similar conclusion when on the idea of άπολυτρώεως they say, ‘we can hardly resist the conclusion that the idea of the λύτρον retains its full force, that it is identical with the τμή, and that both are ways of describing the Death of Christ. The emphasis is on the cost of man’s redemption.‘88
ς is concerned the meaning seems to be clear. Paul is here making use of the redemption metaphor again, and once more we have the price mentioned in the context, though in this case it is not formally joined to άπολύτρως. ‘Being justified freely by his grace,’ says the apostle, ‘through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood ...’ It is true that ‘his blood’ is more directly connected here with propitiation than with redemption, but there can be no doubt that there is also an indirect glance at the price paid, so that Moffatt is justified when he translates άπολυτρώσεως by ‘ransom’. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam come to a similar conclusion when on the idea of άπολυτρώεως they say, ‘we can hardly resist the conclusion that the idea of the λύτρον retains its full force, that it is identical with the τμή, and that both are ways of describing the Death of Christ. The emphasis is on the cost of man’s redemption.‘88
The third passage where the thought of price is clear is Hebrews 9: 15, where we read of a death taking place ‘for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant’. The expression ’redemption of the transgressions’ is unusual, but it does not modify the central thought, namely that the redemption spoken of is the result of the death which has taken place; indeed, the death took place for the very purpose of effecting this redemption. Thus the idea that Christ has paid the price of our freedom in His death is present in this passage also.89
Of the other passages where the word occurs Ephesians I: 14 must be taken in conjunction with Ephesians I : 7. It is hardly conceivable that our author should use the one word in two completely different ways in the same context. (Actually, since the style is somewhat involved, the two occurrences of άπλύτρωσς are in successive sentences.) Since άπολύρωσς bears its usual meaning in verse 7 it would be captious to urge that it has a different meaning in verse 14 unless some cogent reason can be found. But such does not appear.
ς are in successive sentences.) Since άπολύρωσς bears its usual meaning in verse 7 it would be captious to urge that it has a different meaning in verse 14 unless some cogent reason can be found. But such does not appear.The case is not otherwise with Colossians I:14, for this verse, as far as the reference to redemption is concerned, merely repeats Ephesians I : 7, with the omission of the words referring to the price paid. If there is some compelling reason, we can of course say that the omission is significant and that ἁπολύτρωσς bears a different meaning here, but such a reason is not apparent. Indeed, the context favours a strict application of the ransom idea, for the metaphor of deliverance from captivity at the hand of a powerful enemy is being followed out. In verse 13 this takes place by the intervention of a stronger power defeating and overcoming the foe, but in verse 14 the metaphor changes from ‘the victor who rescues the captive by force of arms (ver. 13 έρύσατο) to the philanthropist who releases him by the payment of a ransom’.90 There can be no reasonable doubt in view of Ephesians I : 7 and the context here that we are to think of the payment of a ransom.
ς bears a different meaning here, but such a reason is not apparent. Indeed, the context favours a strict application of the ransom idea, for the metaphor of deliverance from captivity at the hand of a powerful enemy is being followed out. In verse 13 this takes place by the intervention of a stronger power defeating and overcoming the foe, but in verse 14 the metaphor changes from ‘the victor who rescues the captive by force of arms (ver. 13 έρύσατο) to the philanthropist who releases him by the payment of a ransom’.90 There can be no reasonable doubt in view of Ephesians I : 7 and the context here that we are to think of the payment of a ransom.There are three passages wherein the thought is eschatological, namely: ‘But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads; because your redemption draweth nigh’ (Lk. 21: 28); ‘but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body’ (Rom. 8 : 23); ‘And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption’ (Eph. 4: 30). There can be no doubt that in each of these cases redemption means something more than that which believers have already experienced. Just as the Jews of that day (and of all succeeding ages right down to our own) looked forward to a ‘redemption’, so did the Christians. One day their Messiah would return to the earth and thus there would be a great ‘redemption’ which would be of the greatest concern to them all. The resemblances to the Jewish conception are striking. The wording, the assurance of deliverance, the association of the deliverance with the Messiah, the earnest looking forward to it, in all these points we have resemblance to the Jewish idea.
But before we conclude that this is just another example of the Jewish usage and equate άπολύτρως in these passages with deliverance, there are certain factors which must be considered. The first of these reminds us of the difference in terminology. The Jewish conception is expressed usually by λυτροóμα, which, in two of its three New Testament occurrences, indicates clearly a ransoming with the price explicitly mentioned. The noun λύτρως would accord better with the Jewish idea, but the word used of this eschatological redemption is not λὺτρωσς but άπολύτρως. This difference in terminology may or may not amount to much, but it is there, and as far as it goes it signifies a different idea.
ς in these passages with deliverance, there are certain factors which must be considered. The first of these reminds us of the difference in terminology. The Jewish conception is expressed usually by λυτροóμα, which, in two of its three New Testament occurrences, indicates clearly a ransoming with the price explicitly mentioned. The noun λύτρως would accord better with the Jewish idea, but the word used of this eschatological redemption is not λὺτρωσς but άπολύτρως. This difference in terminology may or may not amount to much, but it is there, and as far as it goes it signifies a different idea.But the great obstacle to believing that these passages refer simply to a final deliverance along purely Jewish lines lies in the fact that between the Old and the New Testaments stands the cross. The older writers spoke of a coming redemption, but without any precise idea of how God’s Messiah would bring it about. The New Testament writers had in view a redemption purchased at the price of the precious blood. The words we have quoted must be interpreted in the light of the whole Christian experience of God’s mighty intervention for man’s salvation and not in isolation from it. As we read, for example, the glowing words of St. Paul it is impossible not to be struck by the fact that he sees everything in the light of the cross which for him has made all things new. It is difficult to think of a reason why redemption in two passages should form an exception to this. On the contrary, in the light of Paul’s statements elsewhere about the cross, and about redemption, we must surely hold that here, too, he sees redemption only in the light of the cross.
It is, moreover, a definite strand in Christian teaching that salvation, although it is a present reality and not something which may, if all goes well, eventually be given to the believer, is nevertheless not capable of being realized in all its fullness here and now. Now we enjoy ‘the earnest’ of the Spirit, but only in the hereafter will the complete experience be possible. ‘Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be’ (I Jn. 3 : 2) is typical New Testament teaching, and it has its application to the concept of redemption. To speak of a future redemption is not to imply that there awaits us a redemption which has no relationship to that accomplished at Calvary, being simply a deliverance from some outward enemy in the typical Jewish style. On the contrary, the future redemption is the consummation, the outworking of the redemption which was accomplished once for all by the death of the Redeemer. While there is no reason to doubt that the three passages we have quoted point to some further tremendous action of divine power, it still remains that only by taking them out of their context in Christian life and thought can we separate them from the atonement wrought by Christ. The New Testament consistently bases our redemption on the payment of the price in the death on Calvary. 91
There remain for consideration only I Corinthians I: 30 and Hebrews II : 3 5. The former passage tells us that ‘of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord’. There is nothing here which absolutely determines the sense of άπολύτρωσς, and we must take the meaning from general considerations, and from its meaning in other passages. If we are convinced from such other passages that άπολύτρως means nothing more than deliverance, then we shall naturally take the same meaning here.92 But, if our study of its other occurrences leads us to feel that the word has a fuller meaning, we shall find nothing to forbid us applying that fuller meaning in this context. Indeed, in the concluding words, with their implication of man’s total inability to do anything meritorious in the sight of God, we shall find positive encouragement for thinking of a full meaning in redemption.93
ς, and we must take the meaning from general considerations, and from its meaning in other passages. If we are convinced from such other passages that άπολύτρως means nothing more than deliverance, then we shall naturally take the same meaning here.92 But, if our study of its other occurrences leads us to feel that the word has a fuller meaning, we shall find nothing to forbid us applying that fuller meaning in this context. Indeed, in the concluding words, with their implication of man’s total inability to do anything meritorious in the sight of God, we shall find positive encouragement for thinking of a full meaning in redemption.93The final passage deals with times of persecution, and speaks of various tortures which were inflicted upon the sufferers. The fate of individuals varied, however, and the writer speaks of women receiving their dead by resurrection. But there were others who ‘were tortured, not accepting the redemption’, and this has been interpreted as meaning simply ‘deliverance’. In the context this interpretation is not impossible, but it is certainly not demanded. There is no thought that the sufferers received an unconditional offer of freedom. On the contrary, their refusal of the redemption ‘that they might obtain a better resurrection’ certainly implies that there were conditions laid down, and such conditions as made it difficult or impossible to preserve their standing in the sight of God. In a word the context leads us to think that deliverance was offered to them only on condition of apostasy. They were asked to pay a price, and for religious men a very heavy price, as the condition of deliverance.
The kind of situation that is meant is found in the stories of the death of Eleazar (2 Mace. 6: 18f.) and of the seven brothers (2 Macc. 7: if.). The case of the youngest of these is especially to the point, and may even have been in the mind of the writer to the Hebrews. After six of the brothers had died refusing to accept deliverance at the price of apostasy, the tyrant exhorted the lad’s mother to urge him to save his life. She, instead, urged him to remain constant, and finished her exhortation with the words: ‘Fear not this butcher, but, proving thyself worthy of thy brethren, accept thy death, that in the mercy of God I may receive thee again with thy brethren’ (2 Macc. 7: 29).94 If it was this kind of choice the writer to the Hebrews had in mind when he spoke of refusing the redemption in order to obtain a better resurrection, then his choice of the word άπολύτρωσς is peculiarly apt, for such a deliverance could be bought only at a considerable price. There is nothing in this passage to disturb the conclusions we have hitherto reached.
ς is peculiarly apt, for such a deliverance could be bought only at a considerable price. There is nothing in this passage to disturb the conclusions we have hitherto reached.From our examination of the occurrences of άπολύτρως it would seem, then, that everything depends on the way we approach the question. If we forget the intrinsic meaning of the word, and begin with one of the more metaphorical examples, we may be able to build up quite a case for believing that in the New Testament the word has been emasculated.95 But if we seek first to find out what the word means in Greek writers generally, and then approach the New Testament to see whether Christians used the term in the usual fashion or whether they whittled down its significance, it appears that the first Christians were no less colourful in their language than other men. In every case άπολύτρωσς may be allowed to have its natural meaning.
ς it would seem, then, that everything depends on the way we approach the question. If we forget the intrinsic meaning of the word, and begin with one of the more metaphorical examples, we may be able to build up quite a case for believing that in the New Testament the word has been emasculated.95 But if we seek first to find out what the word means in Greek writers generally, and then approach the New Testament to see whether Christians used the term in the usual fashion or whether they whittled down its significance, it appears that the first Christians were no less colourful in their language than other men. In every case άπολύτρωσς may be allowed to have its natural meaning.It is sometimes urged in support of the idea that redemption is a rather colourless conception for the early Christians that it has become a technical term for them, and that thereby it has taken to itself a meaning which it holds nowhere else. Thus Büchsel says: ‘The word άπολύτρωσς has become in early Christianity an expression with a religious content and has thus acquired a special meaning which is not found outside the same’, and he goes on to speak of άπολύτρωσς as a ‘terminus technicus’.96 But it is difficult to see how this position can be made good. After all a technical term, to be understood, must be accepted by those to whom it is addressed as a technical term. It must be in use in the entire circle, or if used by one man only it must be explained by him, or, at the very least, used by him so frequently in the technical sense that there can be no doubt as to his meaning. What he cannot do is take a word with a known significance, give it a new meaning all his own, and use it occasionally in the new sense without explanation. But if Büchsel is right, it is precisely this of which we must accuse Paul! What sort of technical term is it about which it can be said (in Büchsel’s own words) ‘άπολύτρωσς does not belong to the leading ideas of the first Christian preaching and teaching. It is completely absent from Mk.-Mt., John, the Catholic epistles and the Apocalypse. Its occurrence in Lk. is rare. In Paul it cannot compare in importance with δαοσύνη or αταλλαΥή’?97 To take up such a position seems to be to avoid the issues raised by the redemption idea. There can be no doubt as to the significance of this word, and there can be no doubt that the normal significance fits the New Testament passages well.
ς has become in early Christianity an expression with a religious content and has thus acquired a special meaning which is not found outside the same’, and he goes on to speak of άπολύτρωσς as a ‘terminus technicus’.96 But it is difficult to see how this position can be made good. After all a technical term, to be understood, must be accepted by those to whom it is addressed as a technical term. It must be in use in the entire circle, or if used by one man only it must be explained by him, or, at the very least, used by him so frequently in the technical sense that there can be no doubt as to his meaning. What he cannot do is take a word with a known significance, give it a new meaning all his own, and use it occasionally in the new sense without explanation. But if Büchsel is right, it is precisely this of which we must accuse Paul! What sort of technical term is it about which it can be said (in Büchsel’s own words) ‘άπολύτρωσς does not belong to the leading ideas of the first Christian preaching and teaching. It is completely absent from Mk.-Mt., John, the Catholic epistles and the Apocalypse. Its occurrence in Lk. is rare. In Paul it cannot compare in importance with δαοσύνη or αταλλαΥή’?97 To take up such a position seems to be to avoid the issues raised by the redemption idea. There can be no doubt as to the significance of this word, and there can be no doubt that the normal significance fits the New Testament passages well.