¹ See also Rom 14. 15; 1 Thess 5.10; ‘Christ died for the ungodly (ύπέρ άσεβν’ Rom 5. 6; cf. ύπέρ άδíκων 1 Pet 3. 18); ‘for all (ύπήρ πάντων)’ (2 Cor 5. 14, 15); see Mark 14. 24 (cf. περì πολλν in Matt 26. 28); Luke 22.19; John 6. 51; 10.11, 15; 11. 50, 51, 52; 13. 37, 38; 15.13; 18. 14.Google Scholar

² Thus, for instance, Rom 3. 24–25 speaks of atonement; 2 Cor 5. 21, of vicarious substitution; and 2 Cor 5. 14–15, of both. See Conzelmann, Hans, 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), on 1 Cor 15. 3, p. 254, and note 59;Google ScholarRiesenfeld, H., ύπέρ, in TDNT, volume VIII, 507–16, especially the discussion of ‘on behalf of’ and ‘in the place of’, 508–12 and 512–13 respectively;Google ScholarVincent, Taylor, The Atonement in New Testament teaching (London: Epworth Press, 1946), see esp. 173–9;Google ScholarMoule, C. F. D., The Origin of Christology (Cambridge University Press, 1977), chapter 4, ‘The scope of the death of Christ’, 107–26, and note especially ‘A summary note on prepositions’, 118–21; R. E. Davies, ‘Christ in our Place — The Contribution of the Prepositions’, Tyndale Bulletin 21 (1970) 71–91; G. Delling, ‘Zum steigernden Gebrauch von Komposita mit ύπέρ bei Paulus’, Novum Testamentum 11 (1969) 127–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ ‘Of the two phrases, “for us” is the more original, because “for our sins” represents a more developed interpretation. “For us” leaves open the question whether substitution or atonement is meant; but “for our sins” clearly interprets the death as an atoning sacrifice.’ Werner, Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God (Studies in Biblical Theology No. 50; London: SCM Press, 1966) 26–7.Google Scholar

⁴ The LXX has: ‘He bears our sins and suffers for us (τάς άμαρτíας, ήμν φέρει καí περì ήμν όδυνται)… But he was wounded because of our sins (έτραυματíσθη διά τάς άνομíας ήμν καì μεμαλάκισται δι τς άμαρτíας ήμν.’ See on this Martin, Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), especially chapter II, The Origin of the Soteriological Interpretation of the Death of Jesus’, 33–75, and more specifically on the influence of the Isaiah 53 text, pp. 57–60. Conzelmann remarks, ‘The formula originated in a Greek-speaking, Jewish-Christian community. More than this we cannot say’ (1 Corinthians, 252).Google Scholar

⁵ See Hengel, M., Atonement, 33–4, 47–8;Google ScholarHans, Conzelmann, ‘History and Theology in the Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels’, Interpretation 24 (1970) 178–9.Google Scholar

⁶ For a history of the doctrine see Jean, Rivière, ‘Rédemption’, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, tome XIII.2, cols. 1912–2004; Le dogme de la Rédemption. Etude théologique (Paris: Gabalda, 1905) (The Doctrine of the Atonement. A Historical Essay, 2 volumes [London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1909]);Google Scholarand several other historical studies, for which see Richard, L., Le mystère de la rédemption (Paris: Desclée, 1959), p. v. (E. T.: Louis Richard, The Mystery of the Redemption [Baltimore: Helicon, 1965]); and H. Urs von Balthasar et A. Grillmeier, Le Mystère Pascal (Mysterium Salutis: Dogmatique de l'histoire du salut 12; Paris: Cerf, 1972) 279–366.Google Scholar

⁷ ‘Irenaeus did not merely confine himself to describing the fact of redemption, its content and its consequences; but he also attempted to explain the peculiar nature of this redemption from the essence of God and the incapacity of man, thus solving the question ”cur deus homo“ in the highest sense.’ Adolph, Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. 2 (New York: Dover, 1961) 289. Cf. Tertullian's reverse argument: ‘Negata vero morte, dum caro negatur, nee de resurrectione constabit.’ (Adv. Marcionem III.8.6 in CCSL 1:519). See also Jean Rivièere, ‘Un exposeé marcionite de la Réedemption’, Revue des Sciences Religieuses Strasbourg 1 (1921) 185–207; 297–323.Google Scholar

⁸ The vast historical researches of Jean Riviere preclude our saying of the doctrine of redemption what the recent work of Alister, E. McGrath on ‘justification’, lustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2 volumes (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1986) states in its opening sentence, ‘The history of the development of the Christian doctrine of justification has never been written’ (vol. 1, p. ix).Google Scholar

⁹ ‘Rancon et sacrifice appartiennent au vocabulaire biblique et patristique le plus formel... Satisfaction et méerite, au contraire, ne sont entrés qu'au Moyen Age dans la theéologie de la Réedemption.’ J. Riviéere, ‘Réedemption’, DTC XIII.2, column 1966. This is not to say that ‘satisfaction’ and ‘merit’ were unknown before Anselm, but that they were not the key terms for understanding the work of our redemption. Thus, Tertullian says, ‘satisfactio confessione disponitur, confessione paenitentia nascitur, paenitentia deus mitigatur’ (De paenitentia DC.2; CCSL 1: 336); and see Apol. XLVIII.4; CCSL 1:166.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Stanislas, Lyonnet, De peccato et redemptione: II. De vocabulario redemptions (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1960);Google Scholarand, more recently, Sabugal, S., ‘El vocabulario veterotestamentario sobre la liberación’ and ‘El vocabulario neotestamentario sobre la liberacidn’, RevistBib 40 (1978) 71–93 and 95–102.Google ScholarSee also the second part of F. Bourassa, ‘A propos de la redemption’, SciEsp 37 (1985) 189–229, which deals with OT and NT vocabulary.Google Scholar

¹¹ The verb σώςειν occurs 106 times; σωτηρíα 45 times; and σωτήρ 24 times. Robert Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes (Zurich: Gotthelf Verlag, 1958).Google Scholar

¹² Foerster, W. and Fohrer, G., ‘σώςω, σωτηρíα...’, TDNT, volume VII, 990.Google Scholar

¹³ See the Foerster-Fohrer article in TDNT, vol. 7, 965, 992.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The NEB uses ‘liberation’ (Rom 3. 24; Luke 21. 28) or being ‘set free’ (1 Cor 1. 30). This is the term that the Latin Vulgate translates consistently as redemptio, which is from redimo [re + emd]: to buy back, to procure the release of a person by payment, ransom from captivity or slavery, and meaning ‘the act of buying, purchase… the act of ransoming’. See s.v. ‘redimo’ Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982).Google ScholarSee Tertullian's argument: ‘Empti enim sumus magno… Ergo et Christus habuit quo nos redimeret’ Adv. Marcionem V.7.4–5; CCSL 1: 683.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Αύτρωσις in Luke 1. 68; 2. 38; Heb 9. 12; λυτροûσθαι (Luke 24. 21; Titus 2.14; 1 Peter 1.18 [RSV ‘ransomed’]); and άπολύτρωσις (Luke 21. 28; Rom 3. 24; 8. 23; 1 Cor 1. 30; Eph 1.14 [see NEB, though not RSV]; 4. 30; 1. 7 see Col 1. 14; and Heb 9.15). Αυτρωτής the nomen agentis, occurs but once in Acts 7. 35, where it is applied to Moses. The Vulgate uses redimerel redemptio in all these instances, and in the case of Moses, ‘redemptor’.Google ScholarSee Procksch, O. and B¨chsel, F., λύω… λύτρον… άπολούτρωσις, TDNT, volume 4, 351.Google Scholar

¹⁶ So do the NEB, NIV and the NAB. La Bible de Jérusalem uses ‘rancon’ in both passages. The Vulgate has redemptio. On the Markan text itself, see Peter, Stuhlmacher, ‘Vicariously Giving His Life for Many, Mark 10. 45 (Matt 20. 28)’, in Reconciliation, Law, & Righteousness. Essays in Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 16–29.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Thus, Ignatius of Antioch, ‘He suffered all these things for us (δí ύμς) that we might attain salvation (íνα σωμεν)’ (Smyrnaeans 2.1); ‘I seek Him who died for our sake (ύπέρήμν)’ (Romans 6.1) (in LCL pp. 253 and 233); and Diognetus 9.2, ‘In his mercy, he took up the burden of our sins. He himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us (λύτρον ύπέρ ήμν)’ (S.C. 33 bis, p. 74; and Cyril, C. Richardson, Early Christian Fathers [N.Y.: Macmillan, 1970] 220 f).Google Scholar

¹⁸ S.C. 153,18–19. It is in Adv. Haer. V.2.1 that that liberation is specified as from the dominion of Satan: ‘non aliena in dolo diripiens, sed sua propria juste et benigne assumens: quantum attinet quidem ad apostasiam, juste, suo sanguine redimens nos (λυτρωσάμενος)’ (S.C. 153, 30–1).Google Scholar

¹⁹ ‘Tenebat autem nos diabolus, cui distracti fueramus peccatis nostris.’ Origen, In Rom 2:13; PG 14:911C. ‘If, then, the Lord's coming in the flesh has not been, the Redeemer (λυτρωτής) has not paid to death the price for us, and He has not cut off the reign of death by Himself’ St. Basil, Ep. 261.2; PG 32:969B; LCL, p. 77). See Richard, L., Le mystere de la redemption, 115 (E.T.: 153–41).Google Scholar

²⁰ See, e.g., ‘ύπò τοû πονηροû’ in Gregory Nazianen, Or. XLV.22; PG 36:653; Gregory of Nyssa speaks of those who have sold their freedom for money, of the ransom demanded by their master to yield up his possession (Or. catech. XXII; P.G. 45:60C—61A), and of the Deity baiting its hook with flesh to trap the enemy (Or. catech. XXIV; P.G. 45:64A—65C); Gregory the Great makes much the same point, adding, ‘Delenda ergo erat talis culpa, sed nisi per sacrificium deleri non poterat’ (Moralia in Job XVIII.30.6; CCSL 143A: 877 f). He calls the enemy a ‘serpens… non solum tortuosus… sed etiam lubricus’ (ibid., 32.51; CCSL 143A: 881). John of Damascus echoes the same idea: ‘death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and lifegiving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old’ (De Fide orthod. XXVII; PG 94:1095–6; see John of Damascus, in Fathers of the Church [N.Y.: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1958] 332).

²¹ See, for example, the TDNT article cited in note 15 above, or Stanislas Lyonnet, De peccato et redemptione, II, 24–48; or in Lyonnet, S. and Sabourin, L., Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice. A Biblical and Patristic Study (AnalectaBiblica 48; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970) 79–103.Google ScholarSee also Marshall, I. H., ‘The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New Testament’, in Robert, Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope. New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology presented to L. L. Morris on his 60th Birthday (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974) 153–69;Google ScholarM. Carrez, , ‘Rachat’, in Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément, tome IX^e (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1979) cols. 1045–64;Google Scholarand ‘Racheter’ in Bernard Gillie'ron, Dictionnaire Biblique (Aubonne: Editions du Moulin, 1986) 180–2.Google Scholar

²² B¨chsel, F., TDNT, art. cit, 344.Google Scholar

²³ See J. Behm, ωύω ωυσíα, in TDNT, volume III, 180–90; αîμα, volume 1, 172–7; and (with G. Quell), διατíωημι, διαωήκη, volume II, 104–34; and K. Weiss, ωήρω… προσфήρω, in volume IX, 65–8. J. Bergmann, H. Ringgren, B. Lang, ‘zābhach’, in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, volume 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 8–29; and J. Bergmann and B. Kedar-Kopfstein, ‘dām’, ibid., volume 3 (1978) 234–50. Leopold Sabourin, ‘Sacrifice’, Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément, t. X^e, columns 1483–1545. Dennis, J. McCarthy, ‘Further Notes on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice’, JBL 92 (1973) 205–10.Google ScholarFrances, M. Young, ‘Sacrifice’, ExpT 86 (1974–5) 305–9.Google Scholar

²⁴ ‘Atonement’ is ‘variously used by theologians in the sense of reconciliation, propitiation, expiation’, notes the SOED, which adds, ‘Not so applied in any version of the N.T.’ See, however, Rom 5. 11 in the AV. The date assigned the term is 1513. See, e.g., ‘he desires to make atonement / Between the Duke of Gloster and your brothers’ (Richard III 1.3.36–37), but cf. Dryden, in Religio Laid (1682): ‘If sheep and oxen could atone for men’.Google ScholarInnes, Logan, ‘“Atonement” in the English Language’, Expository Times 47 (1935–6) 477–8. S. Lyonnet, De peccato et redemptione, II, 65–6 (in Lyonnet-Sabourin, 118–19), cites ‘at-onement’ as a remedy for the misunderstanding that could result from the native etymological connotations of the various Greek terms.Google Scholar

²⁵ The KJ translates this as ‘propitiation’; and the Vulgate uses propitiatorium, which it also uses in the only other instance of the Greek term's occurrence in Heb 9. 5 (RSV: ‘the mercy seat’; NEB: ‘the place of expiation’). See Büchsel, F. and Hermann, H., ‘íλεως, ίλάσκομαι…, TDNT, volume III, 300–23, see p. 302; and P. Stuhlmacher, ‘Recent Exegesis on Romans 3:24–26’, op. cit, 94–109.Google Scholar

²⁶ ‘Deum impossibile est honorem suum perdere. Aut enim peccator sponte solvit quod debet, aut Deus ab invito accipit.’ Cur Deus homo 1.14; S.C. 276. See in this same edition, the translator Rene Roques's discussion of ‘La sote'riologie: les effets de la mort rgdemptrice de lTiomme-dieu’ in the Introduction, 161–72.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Richard, L., op. cit., 131–6 (E.T.: 175–83). According to Richard (125 [E.T.: 166]), it was Gregory the Great who first applied ‘merit’ to the redemptive act of Christ: ‘Intercedens enim pro peccatoribus, semetipsum iustum hominem qui pro aliis indulgentiam mereretur ostendit’ (Moralia in Job XXIV.2.4; CCSL143B, p. 1191).Google Scholar

²⁸ Yet, in one of the most imposing monuments of this biblical movement, Schrenk, G., in discussing the legal aspects of δικαιόω, writes: ‘In Paul the legal usage is plain and indisputable… It implies the justification of the ungodly who believe, on the basis of the justifying action of God in the death and resurrection of Christ… Yet this act of grace in the cross can be called forensic because in the íλεύωερος judgment is executed on all sin in the Substitute.’, TDNT, vol. II, 215.Google Scholar

²⁹ The noun έλευωερία occurs 7 times; the adjective έλευωερος 16 times; and the verb eXeo9epow 5 times.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Jacques, Dupont, La réconciliation dans la Théologie de Saint Paul (Analecta Lovaniensia Biblica et Orientalia 11.32; Bruges-Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1953).Google Scholar

³¹ It is the apprehension of Christ's ‘benefits’ that anteceded and grounded all christology. This is what Arland, J. Hultgren calls a ‘redemptive christology’ in his recent Christ and His Benefits. Christology and Redemption in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).Google Scholar

³² Ernst, Kasemann, ‘The Saving Significance of the Death of Jesus in Paul’, Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 32–59, see p. 57.Google Scholar

³³ Fernand, Prat, La théologie de saint Paul, 2^ème partie, 18^e Edition (Paris: Beauchesne, 1937) 226. E.T.: Westminster: Newman Bookshop, 1956,190.Google Scholar

³⁴ Thus Saint, Augustine, ‘quattuor considerantur in omni sacrificio: cui offeratur, a quo offeratur, quid offeratur, pro quibus offeratur1’ (De Trinitate IV.14.19; CCSL 50, 186).Google Scholar

³⁵ See the discussion of ‘The conceptual foundations of the Christian doctrine of justification’, in McGrath, A. E., Iustitia Dei, vol. 1, 4–16.Google Scholar

³⁶ ‘The result,’ comments Hans Dieter Betz, ‘is that ”we“ are free from the “curse of the law” and indeed from the law itself. Therefore, Paul can say that Christ is the “end of the Law” (Rom 10:4; Gal 2:19–20; 3:25; 5:6; 6:15).’ Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) 151. So too F. Buchsel, in his article on άρά… κατάρα…, concludes, ‘That Jesus was made a curse for us implies, then, that He is set by God in our alienation from God in order that He might bring us out of it to fellowship with God… Paul accepts the fact that Jesus has died the death of the accursed and that He is thus the Initiator of new fellowship with God.’ TDNT, vol. I, 451.Google Scholar

³⁷ See, for instance, the ‘scapegoat’ christology of the Epistle of Barnabas 5 (LCL, 364–69; S.C. 172,104–15).Google Scholar