SO GREAT A SALVATION

SOME INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS

I. THE SCOPE OF THE SUBJECT

Soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, must be the grandest theme in the Scriptures. It embraces all of time as well as eternity past and future. It relates in one way or another to all of mankind, without exception. It even has ramifications in the sphere of the angels. It is the theme of both the Old and New Testaments. It is personal, national, and cosmic. And it centers on the greatest Person, our Lord Jesus Christ.

From God’s perspective salvation includes the total work of God in bringing people from condemnation to justification, from death to eternal life, from alienation to filiation. From the human perspective it incorporates all of the blessings that being in Christ brings both in this life and the life to come.

The inclusive sweep of salvation is underscored by observing the three tenses of salvation. (1) The moment one believed he was saved from the condemnation of sin (Eph. 2:8; Titus 3:5). (2) That believer is also being saved from the dominion of sin and is being sanctified and preserved (Heb. 7:25). (3) And he will be saved from the very presence of sin in heaven forever (Rom. 5:9-10).

THE BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY

I. THE OLD TESTAMENT USAGE

The most important Hebrew root word related to salvation in the Old Testament is yasha’. Originally it meant to be roomy or broad in contrast to narrowness or oppression. Thus it signifies freedom from what binds or restricts, and comes to mean deliverance, liberation, or giving width and breadth to something. Sometimes this deliverance came through the agency of man (e.g., through judges, Judges 2:18; 6:14; 8:22; 12:2; or kings, 1 Sam. 23:2), and sometimes through the agency of Yahweh (Pss. 20:6; 34:6; Isa. 61:10; Ezek. 37:23; Zech. 3:4). Sometimes salvation is individual (Ps. 86:1-2) and sometimes corporate, that is, of the nation (Isa. 12:2, though all the world will share in it, 45:22; 49:6). In the Old Testament salvation was not only a deliverance from some trouble but also a deliverance to the Lord for His special purpose (43:11-12; 49:6).

Faith was the necessary condition for salvation in the Old Testament as well as in the New. Abraham believed in the Lord and the Lord counted it to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:6). The Hebrew prefix beth indicates that Abraham confidently rested his faith on God (cf. Ex. 14:31; Jonah 3:5). The covenant relationship established by the Mosaic Law also implied that an Israelite had to have faith in the God of that covenant if he were to be pleasing to Him and not be cut off.

The object of faith was always the true God (Num. 14:11; 20:12; 2 Kings 17:14, Ps. 78:22, Jonah 3:5). This Savior God was the sole origin of salvation (Ps. 3:8, Jonah 2:9). To trust in idols was not only ineffective but ludicrous, for salvation was of the Lord.

II. THE NEW TESTAMENT USAGE

In both the Septuagint and the New Testament the Greek verb sozo and its cognates soter and soteria usually translate yasha’ and its respective nouns. However, a number of times the sozo group translates shalom, peace or wholeness, and its cognates. Thus salvation can mean cure, recovery, remedy, rescue, redemption, or welfare. This can be related to preservation from danger, disease, or death (Matt. 9:22; Acts 27:20, 31, 34; Heb. 5:7). But the full Christian usage means saving from eternal death and endowing a person with everlasting life (Rom. 5:9; Heb. 7:25).

As in the Old Testament, the initiative of salvation is entirely with God (John 3:16). The Lord Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the sole basis for that salvation (Acts 4:12; Heb. 5:9). As stated before, this salvation has a past aspect which occurred when we believed, a present aspect, and a future consummation.

But word usage does not begin to fathom all that the biblical revelation declares about salvation. Other concepts like sacrifice, redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, and justification are vital to a full understanding of the doctrine. These will be considered later, but I mention them now lest anyone think that the doctrine is built only on the words related to saving.

Salvation affects the whole man. Nevertheless, the removal of man’s fallen nature and the receiving of a resurrection body awaits a future day. But this is also a part of our salvation (Rom. 8:23). In addition, the curse which has been on the world will be removed (vv. 18-23) and the entire universe will feel the effects of Christ’s work of reconciliation (Col. 1:20).

(THE PASSION OF CHRIST

The basis of all the facets, accomplishments, and benefits of the death of Christ is, of course, the historical event of His death on the cross. “Passion” means suffering, and particularly the sufferings of Christ between the night of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.

I. THE NEED FOR HIS PASSION

Because of man’s sinfulness and helplessness, someone else had to step in and aid him if he was to find acceptance and fellowship with a holy God. Sin brought and brings estrangement from God, and depravity means that nothing man can do will merit any favor or consideration from God as far as salvation is concerned.

Without repeating the material under the doctrine of sin, the salient points need to be reviewed. Everyone born into this world stands condemned because of (a) his relation to Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12), and (b) because of the sin nature with which everyone is born (Eph. 2:3). In addition, (c) all commit sin which is the inevitable fruit of the sin nature (Rom. 3:9-23). This means not only universal condemnation but also establishes a universal need that all have to be saved from sin’s penalty.

Everyone born into this world is helpless to do anything to gain soteriological favor with God. Depravity, you remember, does not mean that people cannot or do not perform actions that are good in man’s and God’s sight; nor does it mean that sinful man has no conscience to judge between good and evil for himself; nor that people indulge in every form of sin or even in any particular sin to the greatest extent possible. But depravity does mean that because man’s entire being has been corrupted he can never do anything that would merit saving favor with God. In relation to salvation this means that help will have to come from someone who has not been affected with that corruption, someone who is sinless.

II. THE PERSON OF THE PASSION

The Person involved in that atoning sacrifice was the God-Man. Only this kind of Being could have effected our salvation. Again, without repeating material under Christology, let me review some of the salient features of His person that bear on His atoning work.

Though there are a number of reasons stated in Scripture for the Incarnation, the principal one was that He might save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). To do this required Incarnation; that is, God in flesh. God has declared that the penalty for sin has to be death. Since God cannot die, there had to be an Incarnation in order that there be a human nature to experience death and thus pay the penalty for sin.

The God-ordained means of accomplishing the Incarnation was the Virgin Birth. Whether He could have done it some other way and still preserve the sinlessness of Jesus Christ can only be a matter of conjecture. The fact of the matter is that He did do it through the Virgin Birth. The feminine singular relative pronoun “by whom” in Matthew 1:16 undebatably links Christ to one human parent, His mother. It was a Virgin Birth.

The result of the Virgin Birth was a God-Man. God always was. The total human nature was conceived by the Spirit in the womb of Mary, and the Baby born was fully God and a perfect human being, united in one Person forever. This is called the hypostatic union.

This God-Man, unique in all history, alone qualifies to be an adequate Savior. The Savior had to be human in order to be able to die, for God does not die, and the Savior had to be God in order to make that death an effective payment for sin. When a sinful person dies, he or she dies for his or her own sins. A sinless person can atone for the sins of others.

Notice this truth in the opening verses of Romans 1. When Paul describes the Gospel (v. 1), he says that it concerns God’s Son (v. 3); and that Son was human (from the seed of David, v. 3) and Divine (designated to be the Son of God, v. 4). In other words, we have a Gospel simply because we have a God-Man Savior-man to be able to die, and God to make that death a satisfactory payment for the sins of the world. No other kind of savior can save.

III. THE SUFFERINGS IN THE PASSION

The sufferings of Christ in His death have been labeled His passive obedience in classical Protestant theology. This passive obedience stands in contrast to Christ’s active obedience which refers to the obedience exhibited during His lifetime. His life was, of course, one of obedience, beginning with His willing acceptance of the Incarnation (Heb. 10:5-10), and continuing throughout His entire life on earth (Luke 2:52; John 8:29). Through suffering He learned obedience (Heb. 5:8).

The sufferings of Christ’s life, though real, were not atoning. Nevertheless, the merit of His atoning death is inseparable from the sinlessness and perfection of His life which was attested to by His life of obedience. Thus while theologians have made this distinction between life and death sufferings (active and passive obedience), it fails to be very significant, since only the sufferings of His death and His obedience in being the sacrificial Lamb were atoning.

Strictly speaking, then, only the sufferings on the cross were atoning. It was during the three hours of darkness when God laid on Christ the sins of the world that Atonement was being made. The abuse and scourgings that preceded His time on the cross were part of the sufferings of His life.

IV. THE OUTLINE OF THE PASSION

As we noted at the beginning of this chapter, the Passion usually includes the events from the Last Supper to the Crucifixion. Here is an outline of these events and the nature of the things involved in those last hours of Christ’s life.

A. The Trials

The traditional site of the Passover is in an Upper Room in the southwest corner of the city of Jerusalem.

From there the group made their way across the city to the Garden of Gethsemane (on the slope of the Mount of Olives to the east of Jerusalem) where the Lord was betrayed, arrested, and where He also restored Malchus’ ear. This happened perhaps around 3 A.M.

Back again through the city the Lord was taken to the house of Annas for a hearing. Both Annas’ and Caiphas’ houses were in the southwestern part of the city, not far from the Upper Room where they had been earlier.

Then they moved to the court of Caiaphas’ house where at least a quorum of the Isa gathered and passed sentence on the Lord.

When morning came the full Isa confirmed the sentence passed a few hours before.

The Lord was then taken before Pilate since the Jews did not have the authority to carry out a sentence of death. Pilate’s judgment hall was near the northwest corner of the temple area, across the city from Caiaphas’ house.

An examination by Herod followed. His palace stood at the western wall of the city. So once again the Lord traversed the city.

Across the city and back to Pilate, the Lord was condemned to be crucified.

The site of the Crucifixion is debated. The two candidates are the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, west of Pilate’s judgment hall, and Gordon’s Calvary, northwest of Pilate’s judgment hall. Either location required another trip across a major portion of Jerusalem.

B. The Day

The traditional view of a Friday crucifixion has everything to commend it and nothing to contradict it. All the Gospels state that the day following the Crucifixion was Sabbath (Matt. 27:62; 28:1, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:56, John 19:31). All the Gospels state that the women visited the tomb of Jesus on the day after the Sabbath, that is, on the first day of the week, Sunday (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). It was a common practice of the Jews to refer to a part of a day or night as the whole day (Gen. 42:17-18; 1 Sam. 30:12-13; 1 Kings 20:29; 2 Chron. 10:5, 12; Esther 4:16; 5:1). Therefore, to fulfill the “three days and three nights” of Matthew 12:40 required that the Lord be in the tomb the part of Friday before sundown (day #1), all of Saturday (day #2), and the part of Sunday after sundown on Saturday and until the Resurrection occurred (day #3). And, of course, the Scriptures say He rose “on the third day” (1 Cor. 15:4).

C. The Method

Crucifixion was Eastern in origin. The Persians practiced it, and Alexander the Great seemed to have learned of it from them. Phoenicia, famed for its barbaric practices, frequently employed crucifixion. Rome apparently borrowed it from Carthage and perfected it as a means of capital punishment. The extent to which Rome used it staggers the imagination.

After being sentenced, the condemned person was flogged with a leather whip loaded with metal or bone. He was then required to shoulder the cross beam and carry it to the place of execution. This beam was approximately six feet long and weighed about thirty pounds. This was affixed to the upright stake which was already in place at the execution site. Nails about seven inches long with a head (to keep the body from sliding off) were driven through the hands and feet of the victim. Sometimes ropes were also used to keep the body on the cross.

The Romans had learned to push the feet upward when they nailed them to the cross so that the victim could lean on the nail and push himself upward momentarily in order to breathe easier. Death rarely came in less than thirty-six hours, though most people survived two or three days before they died. Insatiable thirst, pain from the scourging, cramps, dizziness, public shame, and the horror of knowing what lay ahead before the release of death, all combined to make crucifixion a horrible means of dying.

This is what men did to our Lord. And God laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He died to pay the penalty of sin, and He died for you and for me.

THE MEANING OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST

While it is true that the full meaning of the death of Christ cannot be captured in one or two slogan-like statements, it is also true that its central meaning can and must be focused on several very basic ideas. There are four such basic doctrines: Christ’s death was a substitution for sinners, a redemption in relation to sin, a reconciliation in relation to man, and a propitiation in relation to God. Not to emphasize these four or not to insist on their basic importance to a proper understanding of the meaning of the death of Christ is to beggar or even pervert the biblical concept. For example, it is proper and biblical to view the death of Christ as a great display of the love of God, or to see it as an example for us to be self-sacrificing (these are biblical truths, John 15:13; Rom. 5:8), but if these comprised the only meaning of the death of Christ, there would be no eternal value in it. It must provide a substitution and a payment for sin, or the example means relatively little. So we must understand these basic facts first, for they form the saving and eternal meaning of the death of our Lord.

I. A SUBSTITUTION FOR SINNERS

A. The Concept of Substitutionary Atonement

1. The meaning of substitutionary atonement. Substitutionary or vicarious atonement simply means that Christ suffered as a substitute for us, that is, instead of us, resulting in the advantage to us of paying for our sins.

Man could atone for his sins personally only if he could suffer eternally the penalty that sin incurred. Man, of course, could never do this, so in His love and compassion, God stepped into a hopeless situation and provided a Vicar in Jesus Christ who did provide an eternal satisfaction for sin.

2. Objections to substitutionary atonement. Certain objections have been raised against this concept.

a. The idea of substitutionary atonement makes God unjust since He condemned His Son to bear the sins of mankind. This might be a valid objection except for the fact that the Triune God was involved in planning redemption, and the Son voluntarily took upon Himself the work of substitution. In other words, while this might be a valid objection on a finite level, it cannot be on the infinite level, since at that level there are not three separate parties involved.

b. Vicarious atonement makes the innocent Christ suffer for the wicked. This is absolutely true, and is essential to atonement. It is also plainly scriptural (1 Peter 3:18). Therefore, to raise this as an objection is to question the plan and purpose of God.

c. A moral agent cannot be responsible for sin unless he commits it personally. This simply is not so in human government; so it need not be so in divine government. Guilt can come on members of a board of directors for the wrongdoings of their executives. Negligence on the part of school employees opens its officials to lawsuits.

B. The Evidence for Substitutionary Atonement

Clearly the Bible teaches that Christ’s sacrifice was not a matter of sympathy but of substitution.

1. In the Old Testament. The arrangements of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament included the necessity of the offerer laying his hands on the animal being offered as a sacrifice. “This meant transmission and delegation, and implied representation; so that it really pointed to the substitution of the sacrifice for the sacrificer. . . . If the sacrifice was brought by more than one, each had to lay on his hands. It is not quite a settled point whether one or both hands were laid on; but all are agreed that it was to be done ‘with one’s whole force’—as it were, to lay one’s whole weight upon the substitute” (Alfred Edersheim, The Temple, Its Ministry and Service [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950], pp. 113-4). The animal’s death took the place of the death due the one offering that animal. The system clearly taught substitution.

2. In the use of the preposition anti. The root meaning of this preposition, which occurs twenty-two times in the New Testament, is face-to-face, opposite, as two objects placed over against each other and one being taken instead of the other as in an exchange. Critics of substitutionary atonement label this “crude transactionalism.” Nevertheless, the preposition anti does support substitution.

a. In classical Greek. Anti uniformly means “in the place of,” and it has no broader meaning as, for instance, “for the sake of” (see the detailed analysis by R.E. Davies, “Christ in Our Place—The Contribution of the Prepositions,” Tyndale Bulletin, 21:1970, 71-91).

b. In Greek of the New Testament Period. Moulton and Milligan give no examples of anti meaning “on behalf of” or “for the sake of.” The common meaning is “instead of.” The same and only meaning is found in Polybius (ca. 200-ca. 118 B.C.), Philo, and Josephus.

c. In the Septuagint. Among the 318 occurrences of anti there is no example of the broader meaning “on behalf of.” Uniformly it means “in place of” and translates tachath (Gen. 44:33).

d. In the New Testament. Examples of the clear meaning “instead or in place of’ are found in Matthew 2:22 and Luke 11:11. Instances where the idea of exchange is prominent occur in John 1:16; Romans 12:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; Hebrews 12:16; and 1 Peter 3:9. Matthew 17:27 (the incident concerning paying the temple tax) seems to bear a clear substitutionary sense. The tax was redemption money (Ex. 30:11-16). The idea of equivalence appears in Matthew 5:38 and 1 Corinthians 11:15, though some understand the use of anti in the latter reference to mean that a woman’s hair serves in place of a covering. However, this would seem to contradict Paul’s teaching in the preceding verses, so likely it has the idea of equivalence. That is, hair in the natural realm is equivalent to what the covering stands for in the spiritual realm (see Colin Brown, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971], 3:1179). Clearly none of these verses support the meaning “on behalf of’ or “for the benefit of.”

The crucial verse is Mark 10:45 (KJV): “For even the Son of man came . . . to give His life a ransom for many” (see also Matt. 20:28). Anti demands the interpretation that our Lord came to die in our place and as our substitute. It cannot be understood otherwise, and this, of course, was Christ’s own interpretation of the meaning of His sacrifice. Anti also appears as the prefix on the compound word antilutron in 1 Timothy 2:6. Christ was our substitution ransom.

3. In the use of the preposition huper. The original meaning of this preposition was over, upper, and for one’s benefit. The idea included standing over someone to protect him and to receive the blows on his behalf and in his place. Thus the basic ideas in the word include both benefit and substitution, simply because to act on behalf of or for the benefit of someone often includes acting in his place. Both these ideas occur in the New Testament usage as we shall see.

a. In classical Greek. Both ideas of benefit and substitution occur in classical writings (cf. Davies, p. 82).

b. In the Greek of the New Testament period. Again both ideas are found. Often huper is used of someone writing a letter for someone else who was illiterate. Clearly this is a substitutionary idea.

c. In the Septuagint. Again both ideas are found, but it is especially important to soteriology to note that the substitutionary meaning is clearly the meaning in such verses as Deuteronomy 24:16 and Isaiah 43:3-4.

d. In the New Testament. No one debates that huper means “for the benefit of.” The debate centers on whether or not it can mean “in the place of.” Those who deny substitutionary atonement naturally want to eliminate the latter meaning and insist that Christ’s death was not in any sense a substitutionary payment but only a benefit to mankind. Those who affirm substitutionary atonement can rest their case on the meaning of anti, but they can also point to the substitutionary meaning in huper. The case is further strengthened by the fact that huper clearly has a substitutionary meaning in passages that are not concerned with the Atonement. There are three clear ones. (1) In Romans 9:3 Paul wishes he could be accursed in the place of his fellow Jews. He wants to take their place under God’s curse. (2) First Corinthians 15:29 most likely refers to those who by being baptized showed that they had joined the Christian ranks to take the place of those who had died, and therefore could be said to have been baptized for (in the place of) those who had died. This understanding of the verse requires a substitutionary meaning of huper. (3) Even if there were any question about the two preceding examples, there certainly can be no question about the substitutionary meaning of huper in Philemon 13. Onesimus, the converted slave, was in Rome with Paul and he was about to return to his master Philemon in Colossae. In this wonderful letter of intercession on Onesimus’ behalf, Paul tells Philemon that he would like to keep Onesimus with him in Rome to help him on Philemon’s behalf (huper sou). That can only mean that someone had to be in Rome with Paul—either Philemon himself or his slave Onesimus as his substitute. Of course, the idea of benefit is present as well, but the only way there could have been any benefit to Paul was to have Philemon’s substitute, Onesimus, with him in Rome. If huper has both ideas, benefit and substitution in nonatonement passages, then it may also carry both meanings in atonement passages, and indeed it does. Some important examples where the substitutionary idea is present are: John 11:50-51; Romans 5:6-8; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13; Titus 2:14; and 1 Peter 3:18.

To summarize: anti always has the idea of equivalence, exchange, or substitution. It never has the broader idea of “for the sake of’ or “on behalf of.” Huper has both ideas, including the idea of substitution in atonement passages in the New Testament.

C. The Denial of Substitutionary Atonement

Attempts to deny the force of this evidence are usually made in one of two ways. Some claim that even though substitution may be in the picture, it must not be made the controlling meaning of Christ’s death. Thus substitution is submerged in and among the other meanings of His death until it becomes such a minor part of the concept that it has disappeared for all practical purposes. Here is an example: “The death of Jesus is bigger than any definition, deeper and more profound than any rationale. . . . By a rich variety of terms and analogies it is set forth, but it is never completely captured in any verbal net. . . . Even though no final rationale of the cross is to be achieved, we must seek its meaning again and again” (Frank Stagg, New Testament Theology [Nashville: Broadman, 1962], pp. 135-6).

Others simply attempt to reinterpret substitution as always meaning “for the sake of.” Here is an example: “The fact is that he [Paul] intends what we may call a ‘representative’ view of Christ’s death. When Paul writes that Christ died ‘for’ me, he usually means not ‘instead of me’ but ‘for my benefit.’ . . . Thus it cannot be a matter of substitution or of a scapegoat. In another context, it is true, the analogy of the ransom of a captive or (very rarely) that of a sacrificial offering is brought in play by Paul and suggests substitution. But this motif . . . is dominated by the ruling conception of our participation with Christ in His death to sin and the Law” (Amos N. Wilder, New Testament Faith for Today [New York: Harper, 1955], p. 134). And this writer fails to examine any of the evidence of the prepositions or verses I have cited.

Clearly, according to His own teaching and that of the rest of the New Testament, Christ’s death was a substitution for sinners.

II. A REDEMPTION IN RELATION TO SIN

Redemption means liberation because of a payment made. To believers the concept has a special significance since the payment was the death of the Lord Himself.

A. The Old Testament Doctrine

Three Hebrew words form the lexical basis for the Old Testament doctrine: g’l pdh, and kopher. The primary idea in g’l is family obligation related to payment of a price. The kinsman-redeemer had the responsibilities of (a) redeeming family property that had changed ownership, and (b) marrying a childless widow to raise up children in her dead husband’s name. When there was no brother available, the responsibility was extended to the next of kin (Ruth 3:9).

The meaning of the root pdh is that of ransom by payment of a price as in a commercial transaction without any obligation arising from kinship (Ex. 13:12; Num. 18:15-17). This word may have more overtones of grace than g’l simply because the one who redeems has no obligation to do so.

The meaning of kopher refers to the sum paid to redeem a forfeited life (Ex. 21:28; 30:12). All these words consistently signify deliverance by payment of a price. The circumstances may vary from redeeming a prisoner of war, or a slave, or a pawned article, or the nation Israel, but always because of the payment of a price.

Little direct association is evident in the Old Testament between redemption and sin (but see Ps. 130:8; Isa. 59:20). The lack of formal statements making the association is doubtless due to the ever-present and obvious link between redemption and sin seen in the sacrificial system. Because it was continually seen, it did not have to be said so frequently.

B. The New Testament Words

1. Agorazo. The basic idea in this word is to frequent the forum. Then it took the meaning of buying or acquiring in the forum. The New Testament uses it twenty-four times in this usual meaning of buying (e.g., Matt. 13:44; Luke 9:13). The Septuagint uses it with the same basic meaning of buying, a simple commercial transaction (e.g., Gen. 41:57; 42:5, 7).

The soteriological use of agorazo in the New Testament includes three basic ideas. (1) In His work of redeeming, Christ paid the purchase price for all mankind (2 Peter 2:1). (2) The price itself is clearly stated to be the blood of Christ (Rev. 5:9-10). (3) Because we have been bought with that purchase price, we are to serve Him (1 Cor. 6:19-20; 7:22-23).

2. Exagorazo. The compound simply adds the idea of purchasing out of the forum. Two passages in which this word is used are especially significant. In Galatians 3:13 the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death stands out clearly. We were under a curse. He bore that curse. We have been removed from the curse. In 4:5 Paul declares that believers have been completely removed from being under the Law.

In passing, we might note an interesting use of this compound in a nonatonement passage, Ephesians 5:16. Here believers are exhorted to redeem the time, that is, to buy it up and remove it from useless activities.

3. Peripoioumai. This word occurs only one time with reference to the Atonement in Acts 20:28. It means to keep safe or to preserve. In the middle voice as used in this verse, it means to keep or save for oneself or to acquire or gain possession of. Thus the idea is that God acquired the church through the blood of His own Son for His personal possession. Again the idea of a price paid is prominent, and that price clearly was the death of Christ.

4. Lutroo. From the root luo, to loose, this word was used for loosing clothes or animals or prisoners. It was usually connected with a ransom being paid as a condition of release. Thus its meaning is to release on receipt of a ransom.

a. In the Septuagint. The half-shekel atonement money levied before the tabernacle was constructed was a ransom payment for each Israelite twenty years and older (Ex. 30:11-16). The Year of Jubilee involved redemption of property (Lev. 25:31-32). The difference between the greater number of firstborn and the lesser number of Levites was compensated for by a five-shekel ransom per extra person (Num. 3:46-51). In all these instances the idea was freedom because of a price paid.

b. In classical Greek. Again the meaning is uniformly release on receipt of ransom paid. The word was often used in relation to the redemption of slaves and prisoners of war.

c. In the New Testament. The verb lutroo appears in Luke 24:21 (of the national deliverance of Israel); Titus 2:14; and 1 Peter 1:18-19 (of individual redemption). Note especially in the latter reference that the price paid is the blood of the Lamb. The noun lutron occurs only in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45. As previously discussed under the meaning of anti this verse clearly affirms substitution, and the price to be paid is the death of Christ. Lutrosis is used in connection with the national deliverance of Israel in Luke 1:68 and 2:38. In Hebrews 9:12 the sacrificial system of the Old Testament serves as the background for the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. Again the price is clearly “His own blood.”

Apolutrosis appears ten times in the New Testament: once referring to non-Christian release (Luke 11:35), once in the general sense of Christian redemption (1 Cor. 1:30), three times with reference to eschatology (Luke 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 4:30), and five times of the unbeliever’s release (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7, 14; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:14). Clearly the price paid is the death of Christ. We have already discussed antilutron in 1 Timothy 2:6 under substitution. His death was a substitute ransom payment for all.

C. The Doctrine Summarized

Redemption may be summarized around three basic ideas. (1) People are redeemed from something; namely, from the marketplace or slavery of sin. (2) People are redeemed by something; namely, by the payment of a price, the blood of Christ. (3) People are redeemed to something; namely, to a state of freedom; and then they are called to renounce that freedom for slavery to the Lord who redeemed them.