The Meaning of Jesus’ Death: Reviewing the New Testament’s Interpretations 9780567670694, 9780567670724, 9780567670700

Citation preview

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

TEXTS@CONTEXTS SAMUEL, KINGS AND CHRONICLES, I The Meaning of Jesus’ Death Reviewing the New Edited by Testament’s Interpretations

Athalya Brenner-Idan and Archie C.C. Lee Barry D. Smith

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2017 Paperback edition first published 2018 Copyright © Barry D. Smith, 2017 Barry D. Smith has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7069-4 PB: 978-0-5676-8253-6 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7070-0 ePub: 978-0-5676-7071-7 Typeset by CA Typesetting, Sheffield To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Contents Preface vii Abbreviations viii I ntroduction 1 1. Divine Modus Operandi 1 4 2. Prophecies of Messiah’s Rejection from Hebrew Bible Chapter 1 Servant of Yhwh, Priest according to the Order of Melchizedek and Second H uman Being 1. Christ as Servant of Yhwh 2. Christ as High Priest and Sacrifice in Hebrews 3. Christ as Sacrifice 4. New Covenant and Forgiveness 5. Hebrews in the Interpretation of the Early Church 6. Christ as Second Human Being

9 9 22 27 31 33 38

Chapter 2 Sacrificial Suffering and Death 50 1. Christ’s Death as Sacrifice 51 2. Christ as i9lasth&rion 57 3. Christ as Passover Offering 62 Chapter 3 Being J ustified and R ighteousness of God 1. Being Justified by Faith in Christ 2. The Righteousness of God 3. Righteousness of God in Interpretation of Early Church 4. More on the Righteousness of God 5. Identification of Righteousness of God with the Righteousness of Christ 6. Righteousness of God as Formal Cause

72 72 77 83 88 90 94

vi

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Chapter 4 Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 1. Christ’s Death for Others 2. Suffered for Sins 3. Forgiveness Causally Tied to Christ 4. Christ’s Death as Redemptive 5. Reconciliation through Christ 6. Cursed is the One Hanging on a Tree 7. To Take Away Sins and i9lasmo&j for Sins 8. Condemned Sin in the Flesh 9. Being Made Sin 10. Christ as Bronze Snake 11. Cancelling Debt 12. Price Paid and Ransom

98 98 100 101 105 113 116 123 125 127 129 131 134

Chapter 5 Christ’s Death as Means of Deliverance from Dominion of Satan 1. Protoevangelium 2. New Testament 3. Early Church Fathers

137 137 138 147

Chapter 6 Testing of Theories of the Atonement 1. Theories of the Atonement 2. Objections to Penal-Substitutionary Version of Satisfaction Theory 3. Christus Victor Theory Selective Index of References Index of Modern Authors

156 157 176 181 183 190

Preface I wrote The Meaning of Jesus’ Death: Reviewing the New Testament’s Interpretations over the past three years or so. It draws upon previous research and publications related to the salvation-historical meaning of the suffering and death of Christ as well as lecture material from courses that I have taught. The book is an attempt to make sense of a perennially controversial topic, the doctrine of the atonement. The conclusion reached is that the biblical data support both the penal-substitutionary version of the Satisfaction and the Christus Victor theories of the atonement. This conclusion is also found to be implicit in the exegetical reflections of the early church fathers.

Abbreviations 1 Clem. 2 Clem. Abelard Comm. epist. rom.

1 Clement 2 Clement

Commentaria in epistolam pauli ad Romanos (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

Ambrose De fide De Inc. Dom. Sacr.

De fide ad Gratianum Augustum (Exposition of the Christian Faith) De Incarnationis Dominicae Sacramento (On the Sacrament of the Lord’s Incarnation) De interpell. De interpellatione Job et David (On the Prayer of Job and David) De myst. De mysteriis (Concerning Mysteries) De offic. De officiis ministrorum (Three Books on the Duty of the Clergy) De Patriarchis (On the Patriarchs) De Patr. De Spiritu sancto (On the Holy Spirit) De Spir. De virginibus (Concerning Virgins) De virgin. Ennarationes in XII Psalmos Davidicos (Commentary on Twelve Psalms) Ennar.in ps. Ep. Epistulae (Letters) Expositio in psalmum 118 (Commentary on Ps 118) Exp. ps. 118 De fuga saeculi (Flight From the World) Fug. De Jacob. et vita beata (On Jacob and the Happy Life) Jac. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam (Commentary on Gospel Luc. according to Luke) Regulae fusius (Longer Rules) Reg. fus. Ambrosiaster Comm. in epist. Rom.

Commentaria in epistolam ad Romanos (Commentary on the Letter to the Romans)

Athanasius Ar. Decr. Incarn.

Orationes contra Arianos (Orations against the Arians) De decretis Nicaenae synodi (On the Council of Nicaea) De incarnatione verbi (Incarnation of the Word)

Augustine C. ep. pel. C. Faust. Civ. Dei. Corrept. De doct. chr. De nup. et conc.

Contra duas epistulas pelagianorum (Two Letters against the Pelagians) Contra Faustum manichaeum (Against Faustus the Manichean) Civitas Dei (City of God) De correptione et gratia (On Rebuke and Grace) De doctrina christiana (On Christian Doctrine) De nuptiis et concupiscentia (On Marriage and Concupisence)

De Trin. Div. qu. Doct. chr. En. ps. Enchir. Gn. litt. Gr. et lib. arb. Gr. et pecc. or. Io. ep. tr. Io. ev. tr. Nat. et gr. Pecc. mer. Qu. hept. Spir. et litt.

Abbreviations ix De Trinitate (On the Trinity) De diversis quaestionibus LXXXIII (Eighty-Three Different Questions) De doctrina Christiana (On Christian Doctrine) Enarrationes in Psalmos (Expositions on the Psalms) Enchiridion ad Laurentium de fide et spe et caritate (Enchiridion) De Genesi ad litteram (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis) De gratia et libero arbitrio (On Grace and Free Will) De gratia Christi et de peccato originali contra Pelagium et Coelestinum (On the Grace of Christ and on Original Sin) Tractatus in Iohannis epistulam ad Parthos (Homilies on the First Epistle of John) Tractatus in evangelium Iohannis (Tractates on the Gospel of John) De natura et gratia (On Nature and Grace) De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum ad Marcellinum (On Merit and Forgiveness of Sin) Quaestiones in heptateuchum (Questions on the Heptateuch) De spiritu et littera (On the Spirit and the Letter)

Basil De humil. De humiliate (Homiliy on Humility) Epist. Epistulae (Letters) Hom. ps. Homilia in psalmum (Homilies on Psalms) Bonaventure Comm. sent.

Calvin Instit. Chrysostom In ep. ad 1 Cor. Hom. In ep. ad 1 Tim. Hom. In ep. ad 2 Cor. Hom. In ep. ad Col. Hom. In ep. ad Heb. Hom. In ep. ad Phil. Hom. In ep. ad Rom. Hom. In Ioan. Hom.

Commentaria in quatuor libros sententiarum (Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences)

Institutes of the Christian Religion

In epistolam primam ad Corinthios homilia (Homilies on First Corinthians) In epistolam I ad Timotheum homilia (Homilies on 1 Timothy) In epistolam secundam ad Corinthios homilia (Homilies on Second Corinthians) In epistolam ad Colossenses homilia (Homilies on Colossians) In epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia (Homilies on Hebrews) In epistulam ad Philippenses homilia (Homilies on Philippians) In episolam ad Romanos homilia (Homilies on Romans) In Iohannem homilia (Homilies on John)

Clement of Alexandria Dives Quis dives salvetur (Who is the Rich Man) Paedag. Paedagogus (Tutor) Protr. Protrepticus (Exhortation) Strom. Stromata Cyprian Ad Fortun. De bono pat.

Ad Fortunatum (To Fortunatus) De bono patientiae (On the Good of Patience)

x

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

De Dom. or. De Dominica oratione (On the Lord's Prayer) De op. et eleem. Liber de Opere et Eleemosynis (On Works and Alms) Demetr. Ad Demetrian (An Address to Demetrianus) Ep. Epistulae (Epistles) Cyril of Alexandria Comm. in evang. Ioan. Commentarius in evangelium Ioannis (Commentary on Gospel of John) Chr. un. Quod unus sit Christus (That Christ is One) De adorat. in sp. et ver. De adoratione in spiritu er veritate (On Worship in Spirit and Truth) De inc. Domini De incarnatione Domini (On the Incarnation of the Lord) Glaphr. in Pent. Glaphyra in Pentateuchum (Glaphyra on the Pentateuch) In ep. II ad Cor. (Explanatio in epistolam II ad Corinthios) (Explanation of 2 Corinthians) Cyril of Jerusalem Cat. lect.

Catechetical Lecture

Duns Scotus Sent. Ep. Diog.

Sententiae Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus

Epiphanius Haeres.

Adversus haereses (Against Heresies)

Eusebius H.E.

Ecclesiastical History

Gregory of Nyssa Con. Eunom. Or. cat. Perf. Trid. spat.

Contra Eunomium (Against Eunomius) Oratio catechetica (Catechetical Oration) De perfectione (On Perfection) De tridui inter mortem et resurrectionem Domini nostri Iesu Christi spatio (Three Days Between the Death and Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ)

Gregory Nazianzus Or. Oratio (Oration) Gregory the Great Moral.

Moralia in Job (Morals on Job)

Hilary Comm. Matt. De Trin. Tr. ps.

In evangelium Matthaei commentarius (Commentary on Matthew) De Trinitate (On the Trinity) Tractatus super Psalmos (Exposition of the Psalms).

Ignatius IgnEph IgnPol IgnRom IgnSmyrn. IgnTrall

Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians



Abbreviations xi

Isidore of Pelusium Epist.

Epistolarum (Epistles)

Irenaeus Adv. Haer. Demonstr.

Adversus haereses (Against heresies) Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching

John of Damascus O.F.

An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

Justin Martyr 1 Apol. 2 Apol. Dial.

First Apology Second Apology Dialogue with Trypho

Karl Barth CD

Church Dogmatics

Lactantius D.I.

Divinarum institutionum (Divine Institutes)

Leo the Great Serm. Sermones (Sermons) Mart. Pol. Martyrdom of Polycarp Melito of Sardis Pasch.

Peri Pascha (On the Passover)

Oecumenius Pauli Epist. ad Rom.

Pauli Epistola Ad Romanos (Epistle of Paul to the Romans)

Origen Comm. Jn. Comm. Matt. Comm. Rom. Con. Cels. Hom. in Jer. Hom. in Lev. Hom. in Num. Prin.

Commentaria in Evangelium Joannis (Commentary on John) Commentarius in Matthaeum (Commentary on Matthew) Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (Commentary on Romans) Contra Celsum (Against Celsus) Homiliae in Jeremiam (Homilies on Jeremiah) Homiliae in Leviticum (Homilies in Leviticus) Homiliae in Numeros (Homilies in Numbers) De principiis (On First Principles)

Polycarp Pol. Phil.

To the Philippians

Rufinus Comm. in Symb. Ap. Str.-B.

Commentaria in Symbolum Apostolorum (Exposition of the Creed) Strack, H., & Billerbeck, P., 1965, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vols. 1–6, 4th edn., C H Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Munchen.

xii

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Tertullian Adv. Iud. Adv. Marc. Adv. Prax De fuga De test.

Adversus Iudaeos (Against the Jews) Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion) Adversus Praxeam (Against Praxis) De fuga in persecutione (On Flight in Persecution) De testimonia animae (Testimony of Soul)

Theodoret In Isaiam Interp. epit. ad Rom Interp. ps. Quaest. in Num.

Interpretatio in Isaiam (Interpretation in Isaiah) Interpretatio epistolam ad Romanos (Commentary on Romans) Interpretatio in Psalmos (Commentary on Psalms) Quaestiones in Numeros (Questions on Numbers)

Thomas Aquinas ST

Summa Theologiae

Introduction 1. Divine Modus Operandi In the context of its disobedience and exile, many prophetic texts in the Hebrew Bible foretell a time in the future when God would perform a decisive and irreversible saving act on behalf of Israel.1 In some of these passages this act is associated with a single individual, a king from David’s line; he would be the instrument through which God would bring about this eschatological deliverance of the nation.2 This is consistent with Yhwh’s promise to David to give him an everlasting dynasty.3 The hope of an eschatological Davidic king persists into the second-Temple period and is intensified.4 Because of the practice of anointing kings with oil as a symbol of their being set apart for their role, the term ‘anointed one’ came to be used to denote this eschatological Davidic king.5 Based on a messianic 1. The eschatological saving act includes: (1) Restoration to the land (Amos 9.1415; Hos. 3.5; Isa. 66.18-21; Jer. 31–33; Ezek. 11; 37; Joel 3.1); (2) Restoration of Temple and its supremacy (Mic. 4; Isa. 2; 56.6-7; Jer. 33.18; Ezek. 37.26-28; 40-48); (3) National prosperity (Amos 9.11-15; Hos. 2.21-23; Isa. 65.20-23; Jer. 33.9; Joel 2.19, 23-27); (4) Peace and absence of suffering (Hos. 2.18; Mic. 4.3; Isa. 2.4; 65.20; Jer. 33.9); (5) New covenant, Eternal Covenant or Covenant of Peace (Jer. 31.31-34; 32.3741; 50.5; Ezek. 16; 34.25; 37.24-28; Isa. 54.8-10; 61.8); (6) Giving of the Spirit (Ezek. 36.22-32; 37.12-13; 39.29; Isa. 32.15; Isa. 44.3; Joel 2.28-32). 2. Mic. 5.2; Isa. 9.1-7; Isa. 11; 32.1-8; Jer. 23.5-7; 33.14-22; Ezek. 34.23; 37.2324; Zech. 9.9-10. There are also two passages from the Torah that seem to speak about a future ruler and are interpreted as referring to the Messiah in the second-Temple period (Gen. 49.10; Num. 24.17-19). In addition, 2 Samuel 7; Ps. 2.7; and Isa. 61.1-3 are interpreted as referring to the eschatological Davidic king. 3. 2 Sam. 7.12-16; 22.11-14; 1 Chron. 17.11-14; Pss. 18.50; 89; 132; Amos 9.11-12; Jub. 31.18-20. 4. Sib. Or. 3.652-53; Ps. Sol. 17, 18 (Isa. 11.2-3; Jer. 23.5; Ps 2.9); T. Jud. 22, 24 (Num. 24.17; Isa. 11.1-5; Jer. 23.5-7; 33.14-22); CD 7; 12.23–13.1; 14.19 (Num. 24.7); CD B 19.5-11; 1QS 9.10-11; 1QSa 2.11-21; 1QSb 5.20-29 (Num. 24.17; Isa. 11.2); 1Q30; 4Q161 (4QpIsa) frgs. 8-10 (Isa. 11; Ezek. 38-39); 4Q252 frag. 1, col. 5 (Gen. 49.10; Jer. 23.5 and 33.15); 4Q521 (Isa. 61.1-3); 4Q285 (Isa. 11.1; Jer. 23.33; 33.15); 4Q504 frag. 2, col. 4.7-8 (Ezek. 34.23; 37.24); 1QM 5.1; 11.6-7 (Num. 24.17). 5. Dan. 9.25; Ps. Sol. 17.32; 18.5, 7; CD A 7; 12.23–13.1; 14.19; CD B 19.5-11; 1QS 9.10-11; 1QSa 2.11-21; 4Q521 frag. 2, col. 2; 1Q30; 4Q252; 4Q174 1.18; 4 Ezra 7.2829. The term anointed one is also used to denote kings in general (1 Sam. 2.10, 35; 12.3,

2

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

interpretation of 2 Sam. 7.14 and Ps. 2.2, this future king also comes to be known as the son of God.6 In spite of its Messianic outlook, surprisingly there is an ambivalence about the institution of kingship in the Hebrew Bible. The few positive assessments of it are overshadowed by Samuel’s criticism of the Israelites’ demand for a king.7 The seer tells them that they have sinned by asking for a king, since this is tantamount to the rejection of Yhwh’s kingship and a denial of his covenant: ‘They have rejected me from being king over them’ (1 Sam. 8.7).8 The unmistakable implication is that in an ideal world the Israelites would never have a king, but would be directly subject to Yhwh as their king, perhaps through the Levitical priests. So it is arguable that to have a king is Yhwh’s permissive will only, a concession to Israel’s illicit desire to be like the other nations: ‘Yhwh said to Samuel, “Listen to their voice and appoint them a king”’ (1 Sam 8.22). Yhwh’s compromise with the Israelites’ obstinacy results in a conditional kingship; Israel’s king is not to be an absolute ruler, but is to be subject to the covenant and responsive to Yhwh’s prophetic word (1 Sam. 10.25; 12.14, 23). Of course, without the request for a king, which is rooted in national rebelliousness, there would be no Davidic dynasty and no messianic expectation.9 This event in Israel’s national life exemplifies the principle that God works through human disobedience, so that the realization of God’s salvation-historical purposes is causally tied to it.10 The result is that a historical event like the Israelites’ 5; 16.6; 24.6, 10; 26.9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam. 1.14, 16; 19.21; 22.51; 23.1; 2 Chron. 6.42; Pss. 2.2; 18.50; 20.6; 28.8; 84.9; 89.38, 51; 132.10, 17). 6. 1 En. 105.2; 4Q246 col. 2; 1QSa 2.11-12; 4Q174; 4Q369; 4 Ezra 7.28-29; 13.37, 52; 14.9. 7. There are prophetic references to the emergence of kings from Abram and Sarai and later Jacob, renamed Israel (Gen. 17.6, 16; 35.11). In addition, in his ‘law of the king’, part of the renewal of the covenant in the Plains of Moab prior Israel’s entrance in the promised land, Moses provides parameters for the eventual institution of kingship, which could be interpreted as a positive assessment of kingship (Deut. 17.14-20). Deut. 17.14 anticipates the request but does not condemn it. 8. See 1 Sam. 10.19 ‘But you have now rejected your God, who saves you out of all your disasters and calamities. And you have said, “No, appoint a king over us”’; 12.12 ‘But when you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites was moving against you, you said to me, “No, we want a king to rule over us”—even though Yhwh your God was your king’; 12.17 ‘And you will realize what an evil thing you did in the eyes of Yhwh when you asked for a king’; 12.20 ‘You have done all this evil; yet do not turn away from Yhwh, but serve Yhwh with all your heart’. 9. In fact, if Saul had obeyed Yhwh there would have been no Davidic dynasty (1 Sam. 13.13; 15.11, 23). 10. The same is true of other nations. God, for example, uses the disobedience of nations for the purpose of disciplining Israel; if these nations are not disobedient, then God’s will is not accomplished.



Introduction 3

demand for a king is paradoxically both God’s will and against God’s will at the same time. The divine modus operandi has no analogy in human experience. The new element that comes about as a result of human disobedience is discontinuous with expectation, itself based on scripture, which explains why it is not fully clear until after the fact that it is actually the will of God. Once inaugurated, the institution of kingship proves to be a failure for the most part; with some exceptions in the southern kingdom, the kings of Israel and Judah do not safeguard Israel’s covenantal loyalty, as they are meant to do, according to the ‘law of the king’ (Deut. 17.18-20). As already indicated, this ineffectiveness of Israel and Judah’s kings is the impetus behind the hope of an eschatological Davidic king, the anointed one. According to the New Testament, however, when he does appear, Israel’s anticipated eschatological king is rejected by his generation and handed him over to the gentiles to be executed as a political criminal. While it is certainly ironic, this result is not totally unexpected when Israel’s history of spiritual recalcitrance is taken into consideration. Jesus himself explains that his failure as messenger and mediator of the Kingdom of God is inevitable since the covenant people have consistently rejected those whom God has sent to them (see Mt. 23.34-36; Lk. 11.45-51).11 In conformity with the divine modus operandi, the rejection and death of the eschatological Davidic king advances God’s salvation-historical work—indeed, it becomes its pinnacle.12 What should have happened was that the Messiah would appear and reign over a restored, unified Israel. What actually happened was that the Messiah appeared and was executed, which paradoxically turns out to be what should have happened, since this was God’s true purpose for him. Peter holds that the Jewish leadership was responsible for the crucifixion of Christ, but also asserts that this was according to God’s 11. See also Lk. 13.34-35 = Mt. 23.37-39; Lk. 13.33; Mt. 22.1-10; Lk. 14.16-21 (Barry D. Smith, Jesus’ Twofold Teaching about the Kingdom of God [NTM, 24; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press], chap. 3). Israel’s consistent failure to respond obediently to Yhwh is a thematic thread throughout the Hebrew Bible: Exod. 32.9-10; Num. 14.2223, 30 (see Num. 32.7-15); Deut. 1.19-46; 31.14-21; Dan. 9.6-7. See Stephen’s statement in Acts 7.51-53: ‘You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it.’ 12. Origen explains, ‘Now, if what God promised to those who keep his law has not come to pass, the reason of its non-fulfilment is not to be ascribed to the unfaithfulness of God. But he had made the fulfilment of his promises to depend on certain conditions—namely, that they should observe and live according to his law; and if the Jews have not a plot of ground nor a habitation left to them, although they had received these conditional promises, the entire blame is to be laid upon their crimes, and especially upon their guilt in the treatment of Jesus’ (Con. Cels. 69).

4

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

salvation-historical purpose (Acts 2.22-23).13 This perspective is foundational to the New Testament, although it is scandalous to those who believe that a crucified Messiah is a contradiction, whose death could not possibly have any salvation-historical significance.14 2. Prophecies of Messiah’s Rejection from Hebrew Bible Given the salvation-historical modus operandi, it is not surprising that in the New Testament Jesus’ death and resurrection is said to be foretold in scripture. Jesus explains how his suffering and death as the Messiah is the subject of prophecy (Lk. 24.27). In his view, among the prophecies about the appearance of the Messiah there are some that indicate that his mission will be a failure. Similarly, citing tradition that he received, Paul writes, ‘For I delivered to you…what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures’ (1 Cor. 15.3-4).15 In his speech to Jews in Antioch in Pisidia, he recounts the history of God’s redemptive acts in Israel beginning with the exodus and, consistent with the assumptions of the early church, he says Jesus’ death and resurrection was foretold in scripture (Acts 13.16-41). The early church finds an important reference to Jesus’ death and resurrection in Ps 16. At the end of this psalm (16.9-11), the psalmist confesses his confidence in Yhwh’s preservation of his life: ‘For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, nor will you allow your holy one to see corruption’.16 Ps. 16.10a is synthetically parallel to 16:10b, so that Sheol (lw)#$)17 and 13. Acts 2.23: ‘This man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to the cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death’. 14. The apostle Paul’s statement that his proclamation of ‘Christ crucified’ is a scandal to Jewish hearers insofar as such an ignominious death is thought to be incompatible with being a king anointed by God (1 Cor. 1.19-25). Christians had the apologetic task of explaining to sceptical Jews how Jesus could be Messiah and die as part of God’s salvation-historical purposes. 15. After his resurrection, Jesus appears unrecognized to two disciples travelling to Emmaus and reproaches them for not understanding that his suffering was foretold in Scripture (Lk. 24.25-27, 45-46). Likewise, Peter explains that the Spirit of Christ operating through the prophets foretells through them ‘the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow’ (1 Pet. 1.11). See also Peter’s statement in Acts 3.17-18 ‘But the things that God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he has thus fulfilled’ and Acts 4.28 ‘To do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur’. 16. See Gregory V. Trull, ‘Views on Peter’s Use of Ps 16:8-11 in Acts 2:25-32’, Bibliotheca Sacra 161 (2004), pp. 194-214; George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870), pp. 89-94. 17. See Gen. 37.35; Num. 16.30, 33; Ps. 55.15; Isa. 38.10.



Introduction 5

corruption (tx#$) are synonymous, each meaning death.18 In his address on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, Peter uses Ps. 16.10 to prove that Jesus’ resurrection is foretold in Scripture, which implies that his death is also.19 Assuming that the psalmist is David, he reasons that the king can no longer be speaking at Ps. 16.10 since he did in fact die: ‘He both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day’ (Acts 2.29).20 He therefore concludes the one speaking in Ps. 16.10-11 must be the Messiah, one of David’s descendants: ‘He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption’. On this interpretation, Ps 16.10 is understood as a Messianic prophecy embedded in a Davidic psalm, which becomes known as such in light of a historical incongruity.21 For this reason, David is said to be a prophet, the implication being that he was aware that he was no longer referring to himself, but that there was a change of referent (Acts 2.30).22 18. The Hebrew tx# is understood to mean corruption as in the lxx, and therefore related to verb tx# and not xw# (Waltke, NIDOTTE 4.1113). 19. The ‘critical’ interpretation of Ps. 16.10 is that it the psalmist’s expectation of Yhwh’s protection of him from an untimely, premature death. See Hermann Gunkel, The Psalms: A Form Critical Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), p. 51; HansJoachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), p. 237; A.A. Anderson, Psalms 1–72 (The New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 146; Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (WBC, 19; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), p. 158. Artur Weiser takes a different view, that the psalmist has confidence that he will overcome death: ‘unshakable belief in the life-giving power of God’ (The Psalms: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1962], p. 178). Some commentators understand it as the hope of being spared from dying by being translated to heaven like Enoch or Elijah. Mitchell Dahood writes, ‘The psalmist firmly believes that he will be granted the same privilege accorded Enoch and Elijah; he is convinced that God will assume him to himself, without suffering the pains of death. This sentiment is also expressed in Pss xlix 16 and lxxiii 24’ (Psalms 1:1-50 [AB 16; New York: Doubleday, 1965], p. 91). 20. The author of the psalm is identified as David in the mt and lxx. 21. It should assumed that Peter was not speaking Greek or using the lxx; rather, his argument is based on the Hebrew or Targum. The argument does not require the lxx translation of Psalm 16. This is contrary to S.R. Driver, ‘The Method of Studying the Psalter: Psalm XVI’, Expositor 11 (1910), pp. 20-41 (37); Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), p. 182 n 1. Similarly, David P. Moessner states, ‘Psalm 15 lxx diverges greatly from its counterpart in the Hebrew text, Psalm 16, which is a psalm of trust’ (‘Two Lords “at the Right Hand”? The Psalms and an Intertextual Reading of Peter’s Pentecost Speech [Acts 2:14-36]’, in Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Philips [eds.], Literary Studies in Luke–Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998], pp. 215-32 [223]). 22. The view that Ps. 16.10 admits of a sensus plenior, that it has a single meaning with two referents or that the psalmist’s experience is typological of that of the resurrected Messiah is not compatible with Peter’s statement that, since he died, Ps. 2.10 is

6

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

The use of the phrase ‘your holy one’ (Kydysx / o( o#sioj sou) in Ps. 16.10b may also suggest that the Messiah is now speaking since this is a Messianic title (2.27).23 Peter includes the gloss ‘his flesh’, which makes it clearer that what is foretold is the Messiah’s resurrection (before bodily decomposition) rather than his preservation from death. Similarly, Luke indicates that in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch Paul also uses Ps. 16.10b to prove that Jesus’ resurrection is foretold in scripture (Acts 13.32-37).24 The fact that Yhwh allows the Messiah to die and then raises him from the dead raises the question of why, rather than raise him from the dead, he did not prevent his death in the first place. In other words, Peter’s Jewish hearers would be compelled to inquire into the salvation-historical purpose of the Messiah’s death. Another text from the Hebrew Bible identified as prophetic of the Messiah’s rejection and death is Psalm 118. In a saying attached to the Parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants facilitated by a thematic overlap, Jesus interprets his rejection in light of Ps. 118.22-23 (Mk 12.10-11; see Mt. 21.42-44 = Lk. 20.17-18),25 and is followed in this by the early church (Acts 4.11; 1 Pet. 2.4, 7; see Tertullian, Adv. Iud. 14).26 Although the referent not something that David could ever have said. See, for example, Donald A. Hagner, ‘The Old Testament in the New’, in Samuel J. Schultz and Morris A. Inch (eds.), Interpreting the Word of God (Chicago: Moody, 1976), pp. 78-104; Walter C. Kaiser, ‘The Promise to David in Psalm16 and its Application in Acts 2:25-33 and 13:32-37’, JETS 23 (1980), pp. 219-29; Darrell L. Bock, Prophecy from Proclamation and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology (JSNTSup, 12; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), pp. 170-81. 23. In the Old Testament God is referred to as ‘Holy One of Israel’ (2 Kgs 19.2; Isa. 1.4). The term does not occur in extant second-Temple sources as a messianic title; nevertheless, the New Testament assumes it functions as such (Mk 1.24; Lk. 4.34; Jn 6.69 Acts 3.14; 1 Jn 2.20; Rev. 3.7; 16.5). 24. Presumably, other Christian Jews used this passage apologetically. 25. The imagery changes from agricultural in the preceding parable to architectural. Hans F. Bayer argues that the citation of Ps 118.22-23 is not an appendix to the parable but was originally attached to it (Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection: The Provenance, Meaning and Correlation of the Synoptic Predictions [WUNT, 2/20; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986], pp. 90-109). He claims that Ps. 118 is the key to identifying the tenants in the parable: the Jewish leadership. See Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 689-90. On the development of stone imagery in the theology of the New Testament church, see Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic (London: SCM Press, 2nd edn, 1973), pp. 169-86. 26. Tertullian contrasts Jesus’ two advents and connects his first with Isa. 8.14 and his second with Ps. 118.22 (and Dan. 2, 7): ‘Which evidences of ignobility suit the first advent, just as those of sublimity do the second; when he shall be made no longer a stone of offense nor a rock of scandal, but the highest corner-stone, after reprobation (on earth) taken up (into heaven) and raised sublime for the purpose of consummation and that rock—so we must admit—which is read of in Daniel as forecut from amount, which shall crush and crumble the image of secular kingdoms. Of which second advent of the



Introduction 7

of the rejected cornerstone is not identified, the singular ‘stone’ allows for an application to an individual and perhaps a royal figure.27 If so then Ps. 118.22-23 refers to an event in which a king experiences rejection, which is then followed by vindication. In fact, the Targum on Ps. 118.22 identifies the rejected stone as David, who initially was not recognized as a candidate for kingship but then subsequently became worthy to be king over Judah and then all of Israel (1 Sam. 16.1-3).28 The rejection of this individual is compared to the ironic situation of expert builders rejecting the most important stone in a building, called the hnp #$)r.29 Apart from being important, it is not clear, however, how this stone functions in the structure of a building. It has been suggested that it is a cornerstone either at the base or at the top course, the stone in a building that joins two walls of a building together.30 It may also be the keystone of an arch or a gateway, the central stone at the top of an arch that holds the arch in place.31 Even though it is not known to be interpreted messianically in second-Temple Judaism, Jesus applies Ps. 118.22-23 to his own historical situation.32 His point is that, just as expert builders inexplicably do not recognize the most important stone used in the construction of a building, so Israel’s leaders have not recognized his identity as the most important figure in Israel’s salvation-history.33 The fact that the Hebrew word stone (Nb)) is similar to the word son (Nb), a recognized same (Christ) Daniel has said, ‘And, behold, as it were a son of man, coming with the clouds of the heaven’ etc.’ (Adv. Iud. 14). 27. F.J. Matera, The Kingship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark 15 (SBLDS, 66; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 79-84; R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), p. 462; Rikk E. Watts, ‘Mark’, in G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker Academic 2007), pp. 212-14. See Andrew Brunson, Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John (WUNT, 2.158; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck 2003). 28. N+lw#w Kylml h)nmt)l hkzw y#yd )ynb ynyb twh )ylkydr) wqyb# )yl+ (Tg. Ps. 118.22). There are other references to Jesse, his family, David and Samuel and his sacrifice in Tg. Ps 118.23-29. 29. hnp #$)r in Hebrew and translated as kefalh_ gwni/a in the lxx, which is used in the New Testament. 30. Jeremias, TDNT 1.79-93; 4.274-75; France, The Gospel of Mark, p. 463. This is supported by the use of as an apparent synonym for a)krogwniai~oj in Eph. 2.20; 1 Pet. 2.6. See the description of the in T. Sol. 22.3; 24.3. 31. Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 2nd edn, 1966), p. 476; John Nolland, Luke (WBC, 35c; Dallas TX: Word Books, 1993), p. 953. 32. See Str.-B. I.875-76 for some evidence of a messianic interpretation of Ps. 118.22. Ps. 118.25-26 is messianically interpreted in Midr. Ps. 118.22, an interpretation that Jesus may have known (see Mt. 23.29; Lk. 13.35b; see also Mk 11.1-11 = Mt. 21.1-11 = Lk. 19.28-40 = 12.12-19), and therefore one that probably extended back to the first century, if not earlier (Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus [London: SCM Press, 3rd. edn, 1966] pp. 256-62). 33. J.D.M. Derrett, ‘The Stone the Builders Rejected’, Studia Evangelica 4 (1968),

8

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Messianic title in the first century, may be a subtle self-identification by Jesus.34 The question that is raised for those who accept Ps. 118.22-23 as prophetic is why God would allow his Messiah to be rejected at all. The salvation-historical purpose for which that God allows his Messiah to suffer and die at the hands of sinful human beings can be said to be the main theme of the New Testament. It is the consensus that his suffering and death is for the soteriological benefit of human beings and necessitated by human sin. The goal of this investigation is to elucidate what the New Testament says about this soteriological benefit, what is conventionally called the atonement. A weakness of many theological treatments of the doctrine of the atonement is an incomplete and inadequate exegetical foundation. In this investigation, the exegesis of the relevant biblical texts by the early church fathers is also considered—the adoption of an ad fontes methodology. These earliest theologians are useful as a guide in understanding these texts, for they draw out implications from them and also make many intertextual connections. In addition, they address theological topics not envisioned by the scriptural authors and thereby bring out implicit meaning from the texts.35 Even their errors of excess or omission serve negatively to elucidate the biblical data. It should be noted that it becomes clear quite quickly from a reading of the early church fathers that the commonly-held view that there was one theory of the atonement for the first thousand years of church history, the so-called ‘Classic theory’, which was replaced in the mediaeval period by another theory—the Satisfaction theory—is historically simplistic, if not misleading.

pp. 180-86; William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 420. 34. See Exod. 28.9-12, 21; 39.6-7, 14; Lam. 4.1-2; Zech. 9.16. The Qumran sectarians criticize a group referred to only as ‘builders of the wall’ (CD 4.19-20; 8.12, 18; 19.31). This sobriquet is based on Ezek. 13.10-11 ‘They have misled my people by saying, “Peace” when there is no peace. And when anyone builds a wall, behold, they plaster it over with whitewash; so tell those who plaster it over with whitewash, that it will fall.’ In their assessment, ‘the builders of the wall’ are followers of a false teacher who promulgates wrong interpretations of the Law. These men, who may possibly be the Pharisees, deceptively make their teaching appear sound, just as a builder of a substandard wall can hide its imperfections with plaster. As such, they are comparable to the false prophets in Ezekiel’s time. It is possible that the identification of builders with false religious leaders may have already existed before Jesus’ interpretation of Ps. 118.22-23 of himself, in which case Jesus would implicitly be criticizing his critics. Justin Martyr intertextually connects the stone cut without hands in Daniel 2 and the rejected cornerstone of Ps. 118.22-23 (Dial. 95). 35. Bernhard Dörholt, Die Lehre von der Genugthuung Christi (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1891), p. 62.

Chapter 1

Servant of Yhwh, Priest according to the Order of Melchizedek and Second Human Being The New Testament draws upon three figures from the Old Testament for the purpose of explicating the meaning of the soteriological benefit made possible by Christ’s suffering and death. These are the servant of Yhwh in Isaiah, Melchizedek and Adam, the first human being. 1. Christ as Servant of Yhwh In order to explain the salvation-historical significance of his death, Jesus identifies himself with the servant of Yhwh in the fourth Isaian servant song (Isa. 52.13–53.12), and is followed in this by the New Testament church and then the early church. Such an interpretation assumes that the servant of Yhwh in the fourth servant song is an individual and not a collective reference to the nation or a remnant within the nation.1 This position in fact is required since in Isa. 53.6 the prophet contrasts the nation, with which he identifies (‘all of us like sheep have gone astray’), with the servant who takes the nation’s iniquity upon himself: clearly the servant cannot be identified as the nation because he acts on behalf of it.2 Likewise in Isa. 53.8, Yhwh is distinguished both from his people and the servant, implying that 1. In Isaiah the term ‘my servant’ (ydb() occurs fifteen times in 20.3; 22.20; 37.35; 41.8, 9; 42.1, 19; 43.10; 44.1, 2, 21; 45.4; 49.3; 52.13; 53.11, ‘his servant’ (wdb() four times in 44.26; 48.20; 50.10; 63.11 and ‘servant’ (db() six times in 24.2; 42.19; 44.21; 49.5, 6, 7. It seems that twelve of these are to the nation, being a collective reference: Isa. 41.8, 9; 42.19 (bis); 43.10; 44.1, 2, 21 (bis); 45.4; 48.20; and 49.3. Morna Hooker holds that all the references to the servant are to Israel (Jesus and the Servant [London: SPCK, 1959], p. 46). G.P. Hugenberger identifies the servant as a ‘prophet like Moses’ (Deut. 18; 34) in his ‘The Servant of the Lord in the “Servant Songs” of Isaiah: a Second Moses Figure’, in P.E. Satterthwaite, R.S. Hess and G.J. Wenham (eds.), The Lord’s Anointed. Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), pp. 105-140. 2. To compare the people to straying sheep is common in Old Testament (Num. 27.17; Ps. 119.176; 1 Kgs 22.17; Ezek. 34.5; Isa. 3.12; 9.16; 16.8; 19.13, 14; 21.4; 28.7; 29.26; 30.28; 35.8; 47.15; 63.17).

10

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

the latter two are not to be identified.3 Moreover, Jesus’ use of the fourth servant song assumes that the passage is prophetic, so that the servant is not an anonymous figure from the past, in spite of the use of the past perfect tense.4 (The lxx uses the future tense.) Although not explicitly identified as a royal figure, the fact that David is sometimes called servant of Yhwh at least allows for a Messianic interpretation of the Isaian servant.5 Three things are affirmed of the servant of Yhwh in Isaiah’s fourth servant song.6 First, he is said to be unjustly rejected, resulting in his suffering and death (52.14; 53.2b-3; 8a, 9a, 10a, 12b).7 This is according to Yhwh’s will and purpose for him (53.4b, 6b, 10a), to which he voluntarily submits (53.7).8 In fact, Yahweh is said to be directly involved in the servant’s suffering and death.9 Second, in his willing submission to suffering and death, the servant assumes the guilt and consequences of the nation’s sins, which is expressed variously in this passage.10 This is an exception 3. ‘He was cut off from the land of the living for the transgressions of my people’ (53.8). See also Isa. 42.3, 6; 49.5, 6, 8. 4. John D.W. Watts interprets the fourth servant song with reference to Darius and Zerubbabel (Isaiah 34–66 [WBC, 25; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987], pp. 222-33. 5. E.g.’s 1 Kgs 18.25; Ps. 18.1; Isa. 37.35. 6. See William Urwick, The Servant of Jehovah (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877); C.R. North, The Second Isaiah (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), pp. 226-46; Brevard Childs, Isaiah (OTL; Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), pp. 409-423. 7. See Jeremiah’s rejection (Jer. 15.17; 20.7, 10) and innocent suffering in Pss. 22.67; 88.8. 8. In Mt. 8.16-18, Isa. 53.4 is said to be fulfilled by Jesus’s healings; one must take in consideration, however, the Jewish view that sin and illness are causally related. 9. The idea of God as an agent in servant’s death is blunted in the translation of lxx Isa. 53.4b, 6, 10. See Karen Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), pp. 215-26. 10. In parallelism, the servant is said to bear our griefs ()#&n )wh wnylx) (53.4) and to carry our sorrows (Mlbs wnyb)km) (53.4; see Isa. 46.4, 7). Given the context, griefs and sorrows, although not sins, are nevertheless the consequences of sin (see 53.11-12 where in parallelism the servant bears iniquities and takes the sin of many). See parallels to the use of the verb )#&n in Isa. 53.4 in Exod. 28.30, 38; Lev. 5.1, 17; 10.7; 16.22; 17.16; 19.8; 20.17; 22.9; 24.15; Num. 14.33-34; 18.22; Pss. 32.5; 75.2; Isa. 2.9; Lam. 5.7; Ezek. 18.20). For the servant to bear griefs and carry burdens is to assume the consequences of the nation’s disobedience. The servant is also ‘pierced for our transgressions’ (wny(#$pm  llxm  )wh) (53.5) and is ‘crushed for our iniquities’ (wnytnw(m  )kdm) (53.5). He experiences suffering because of the sins of the nation. Similarly, the servant bears their iniquities (lbsy )wh Mtnw() (53.11) and takes the sin of many ()#&n Mybr-)+x )wh) (53.12). It is also said that the chastisement of our peace is upon him (wyl( wnmwl#& rswm) (53.5). The meaning is that the servant experiences chastisement in the form of suffering and death that brings peace or salvation to the nation. In addition, the servant’s wounds are said to be healing for ‘us’ (wnl-)prn  wtrbxbw) (53.5), and Yhwh is said to have caused all our iniquity to fall on him (wnlk Nw( t) wb (ygph hwhy) (53.6). In spite of the



1.   Servant of Yhwh 11

to the Torah-principle that each person bears his own guilt (Deut. 24.16; 2 Kgs 14.6; 2 Chron. 25.4). Yhwh is said to accept the servant’s innocent suffering as a guilt-offering (M#$)) (53.10), which means that it functions as compensatory equivalent given to God for the transgressions of the many.11 Moreover, in the second divine speech (53.11b-12),12 the righteous servant is said to justify the many.13 In this context, to justify is a judicial term14 meaning to cause the many to be acquitted in judgment.15 The servant justifies the many insofar as he bears their iniquities (53.11) (lbsy )wh Mtnw(w).16 For this reason, he is said to intercede for transgressors (53.12).17 Third, the servant is vindicated and exalted by God, which

evidence, some scholars do not accept this interpretation of the servant, such as R.N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66 (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1975), p. 75; H.M. Orlinsky, ‘The so-called “Servant of the Lord” and “Suffering Servant” in Second Isaiah’, in H.M. Orlinsky and N. Snaith (eds.), Studies in the Second Part of the Book of Isaiah (VTS, 14; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967), pp. 1-133; John Goldingay and David F. Payne, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55 (2 vols.; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006), II, p. 325. 11. Arguably, the term ‘guilt offering’ (M#$)) refers to a generic expiatory sacrifice (see the use of  M#$) in Lev. 5.6, 7; 1 Sam. 6). 12. The first divine speech is found in Isa. 52.13-14. 13. Mybrl ydb( qydc qydcy 14. The servant justifies the many ‘because of his knowledge’, which means either by the knowledge of him by the many or by his knowledge of his salvation-historical role that leads him to agree to suffer and die in this way. What is excluded by the context is the interpretation that the servant shares his knowledge with the many thereby enabling them to become righteous. 15. The Hiphil of the verb qdc occurs in Exod. 23.7; Deut. 25.1; 2 Sam. 15.4; 1 Kgs 8.32; 2 Chron. 6.23; Isa. 5.23; 50.8; 53.11; Dan. 12.3; Job 27.5; Ps. 82.3; Prov. 17.15. With the exception of Dan. 12.3, the meaning is judicial, or forensic. See Thomas D. Petter, ‘The Meaning of Substitutionary Righteousness in Isa 53:11: A Summary of the Evidence’, TrinJ 32 (2011), pp. 165-89 (178); Robert B. Chisholm, ‘Forgiveness and Salvation in Isaiah 53’, in Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (eds.), The Gospel according to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2012), pp. 191-212 (208); Evelyn Damalie, ‘An Exegetical Study of “He Will Justify” in Isaiah 53:11’ (MTS dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2013). 16. John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40–66 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 10, 403-405; R. Reed Lessing, Isaiah 40–55 (Concordia Commentary; Concordia Publishing House, 2011). The concept of bearing sin, which is expressed in different ways, means to assume the consequences of violating the Law. See Lev. 5.1, 17 wnw(  )#&nw; 7.18 )#&t  hnw(w; 10.17 hd(h  Nw(  t)  t)#&l; 17.16 wnw(  )#&nw; 19.8 )#&y wnw(; 20.17 )#&y wnw(; 20.19 w)#&y Mnw(; 20.20 w)#&y M)+x; 22.9 )+x wyl( w)#&y-)l; 22.16 Nw(  Mtw)  w)y#&hw; 24.15 w)+x  )#&nw; Num. 18.22 )+x  t)#&l; Num. 14.33-34 Mkytwnz t) w)#&nw; Ezek. 18.20 Nw(b )#&y )l. 17. (ygpy My(#$pl

12

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

raises the question of how someone who has died can be so vindicated and exalted (52.13, 15; 53.10b, 11a, 12b). In the New Testament the servant is identified as Jesus, who is assumed to be Israel’s Messiah. The theological result is the puzzling view that Israel’s eschatological king is rejected and executed and that this is according to the will of God, a manifestation of the divine modus operandi. In the Lukan account of Jesus’ last Passover meal, Jesus quotes Isa. 53.12 as predictive of his impending death, indicating that he understands his salvation-historical fate as that of the Isaian servant: ‘For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, “And he was numbered with transgressors”; for that which refers to me has its fulfillment’ (Lk. 22.37).18 This Lukan tradition occurs in the context of Jesus’ explanation to his disciples after the Last Supper of how matters have changed in light of his imminent arrest and execution.19 Contrary to his previous teaching, when he sent them out to proclaim the Kingdom of God and heal, Jesus tells them now to carry a purse and a bag and even to buy a sword.20 He is warning the disciples that their 18. Only found in Luke but see Mk 15.28 (added by later manuscripts). 19. Against the view that Lk. 22.35-38 is pure Lukan redaction and therefore unhistorical, there is evidence of non-Lukan linguistic usage in the passage (see Heinz Schürmann, Jesu Abschiedsrede Lk 22,21-38. III. Teil einer quellenkritischen Untersuchung des lukanischen Abendmahlsberichtes Lk 22,7-38 [NTAbh, 20/5; Münster: Achendorff, 2nd edn, 1977), pp. 116-39; Joachim Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums: Redaktion und Tradition im Nicht-Markusstoff des dritten Evangeliums [KEK Sonderband, 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980], pp. 292-93). ‘And he said to them’ (kai\ ei}pen au)toi=j) is non-Lukan, since Luke prefers to use de\ rather than kai\ and pro\j au)tou\j rather than au)toi=j (22.35). Luke avoids the simple use of o#te, preferring de\ o#te (22.35). The use of a)lla_ nu~n (22.36) is also avoided by Luke, who prefers kai\ nu~n. Likewise, the use of the verb a)gora&zw in 22.36 is untypical of the Lukan style. Also the formula le/gw ga\r u(mi~n o#ti is non-Lukan (22.37). The quotation from Isa. 53.12b (kai\ meta_ a)no/mwn e)logi/sqh) appears to derive from the Hebrew text (hnmn My(#&p-t) w) and not the lxx (kai\ e0n toi=j a)no/moij e)logi/sqh), which is uncommon for Luke, who generally quotes from the latter (Luke’s version uses the preposition meta& rather than e0n and omits the definite article, which reflects the Hebrew original) (I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke. A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGCT, 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 826). There are other, more debatable examples of non-Lukan linguistic usage that could be produced, but the above are the least likely to be instances of Lukan composition and are therefore indices of the traditional origin of Lk. 22.35-38. There is, nonetheless, linguistic evidence of Lukan redaction. The use of the preposition a!ter (without) (22.35) is Lukan, as is the use of the neuter perfect participle as substantive to_ gegrame/non (22.37). The use of tele/w in the sense of ‘to fulfill’, i.e., the scriptures, is unique to Luke’s writings (see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke (2 vols.; AB, 28; New York: Doubleday, 1981), II, pp. 1209, 1432). 20. There have been attempts to remove the reference to Isa. 53.12 from Lk. 22.37 as a Lukan redaction. Ferdinand Hahn sees Lk. 22.35-38 as a conglomerate of tradition, Lukan redaction and Lukan composition; he provides a detailed reconstruction



1.   Servant of Yhwh 13

situation after his death will be perilous, different from before. In Lk. 22.37, Jesus then cites a portion of Isa. 53.12 as foretelling his own imminent fate: like the servant he is to be numbered among the transgressors, referring to his impending execution as a criminal. The disciples misunderstand his point, and Jesus cuts short the conversation. If he cites a text from the fourth servant song as predictive of his execution, Jesus doubtless intends that his hearers draw further parallels between himself and the servant.21 of what he thinks was the Lukan redactional process (Christologische Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th edn, 1974], pp. 167-70). Luke 22.35 was taken from material related to Lk. 10.4a (relating to the mission of the seven-two). Luke 22.36a was the product of Lukan redaction and traditional material (‘lukanische Überarbeitung’), which explains why this saying corresponds with Lk. 22.35, whereas the saying in Lk. 22.36b (‘The one who does not have’ etc.) did not originally stand in relation to Lk. 22.36a. The former had no traditionhistorical connection with the mission of the seventy-two, being rather Luke’s redactional contribution; Lk. 22.36b originally belonged to a tradition in which the disciples are warned against the eschatological tribulations that are to come upon them (e.g., Mk 13.16). Because of its parallelism with Lk. 19.11 (a Lukan composition, according to Hahn) and its ‘Zusammenhangs’ with Lk. 22.49-51, Lk. 22.38 is determined to be a Lukan composition. Finally, according to Hahn, Luke introduces the citation from Isa. 53.12 from an often-quoted Old Testament text in the community tradition (Gemeindetradition). Similarly, Hermann Patsch argues that there was originally no explicit quotation from Isa. 53.12 in Lk. 22.37. He reasons that the reference to the necessity of the fulfillment of scripture (to_ gegramme/non dei~ telesqh~nai e0n e0moi/) and the subsequent quotation of a portion of Isa. 53.12 (to_ kai\ meta\ a)no/mwn e)logi/sqh) represents a duplication of forms (‘Koppelung der Formeln’), which in turn may be interpreted as the presence of a further reflection (‘eine fortgeschrittene Reflexion am Werk’). In other words, the second reference, that to Isa. 53.12, was a later addition to an original text that merely referred to the Old Testament as a whole as being fulfilled in Jesus’ death (Abendmahl und historischer Jesus [CThM, 1; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1972], p. 162). Finally, Hooker explains away the authenticity of the passage away in a most tendentious and unconvincing way (Jesus and the Servant, p. 86). Tradition-historical reconstruction tends to be highly speculative. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine on purely internal grounds the origin and history of Lk. 22.35-38. Two considerations, however, suggest that Luke took over Lk. 22.35-38 largely as it now stands. First, that there is a certain amount of obscurity in the passage tells against its being a Lukan creation, for Luke would have striven for more perspicuity of meaning (R.T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982], p. 116). Second, the manner of Luke’s handling of his sources for traditions that he has in common with Matthew indicates that Luke was not inclined to create new units of tradition from disparate pieces of tradition. Patsch’s suggestions founders on his erroneous assumption that the early church did not concern itself with individual texts from the Old Testament to serve as ‘proof’ for Jesus’ passion. 21. See France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 114-16; Vincent Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice (London: MacMillan, 1937), pp. 191-94; T.W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1957), pp. 340-42.

14

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

In a saying about the nature of servanthood, Jesus likely makes reference to himself as the Isaian servant. According to Mk 10.35-45, the disciples James and John request to be granted privileged positions of authority in the Kingdom of God, one sitting at the right of Jesus and the other at the left. The other disciples are indignant at their audacity, which leads Jesus to a discussion of servant-leadership. He explains, ‘Whoever wants to be great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever wants to be first, let him be a servant of all’ (10.44). After this, he says, ‘The son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom (lu/tron) for many’. On literary grounds there is some evidence to conclude that the lutron-saying in Mk 10.45 is secondarily appended to 10.42-44. The evidence, however, is not so compelling as to preclude the possibility that 10.45 originally belongs to what precedes it.22 Moreover, it is possible that 10.45 22. Mark 10.45 may have been joined to Mk 10.42-44 by means of the link word dia/konoj (‘servant’) (10.43), diakonhqh=nai (‘to be served’) and diakonh=sai (‘to serve’) (10.45) (Peter Stuhlmacher, ‘Existenzstellvertretung für die Viele: Mk 10,45 (Mt 20,28)’, in Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsatze Zur Biblischen Theologie [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981], p. 29; Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (2 vols.; HTKNT, 2; Freiberg: Herder, 1976, 1977), II, p. 167; Patsch, Abendmahl, p. 172; Volker Hampel, Menschensohn und historischer Jesus: Ein Rätselwort als Schlüssel zum messianischen Selbstverständnis Jesu [Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1990], p. 305). The connective kai\ ga/r is artificial and looks like a secondary literary connection (Eduardo Arens, The HLQON-Sayings in the Synoptic Gospels: A Historical-Critical Investigation [OBO, 10; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1976], p. 123). Patsch argues that Mk 10.43b-44 is a ‘Wanderlogion’, which in different forms has parallels in Mk 9.35; Mt. 23.11; Lk. 9.48c; 22.26 (Abendmahl, p. 172). This is confirmed for him by the parallelism exhibited in 10.43b-44. The implication is that 10.45 did not originally belong to 10.43b-44. Similarly, it has often been pointed out that 10.45 does not belong thematically to 10.42-44, because 10.42-44 deals with the issue of servanthood whereas 10.45 with Jesus as servant; the transition from the theme of service to that of giving one’s life as a ransom for many is artificial, being a metabasis eis allo genos (see Arens, HLQON-Sayings, pp. 123-24; Taylor, Mark, p. 445). There is no unity in 10.42b-44 and 10.45; each has a parallel elsewhere in New Testament: Mk 9.3335 || 10.42b-44; 1 Tim. 2.5-6 || 10.45 (Hampel, Menschensohn und historischer Jesus, pp. 305-306). The case for the connection of Mk 10.45 and Mk 10.42-44 by means of the link word is feasible, but by no means certain. It is also possible that the connection between dia/konoj (‘servant’) (10.43) and Jesus’ coming not diakonhqh=nai (‘to be served’) but diakonh=sai (‘to serve’) is original. The connection between 10.43-44 and 10.45 is not artificial, being merely verbal, as in the case of other of Mark’s sayings collections; rather, there is a thematic continuity from the one to the other, contrary to the claim that the transition represents a metabasis eis allo genos. The saying of the son of man’s giving his life as a ransom for many is a thematic expansion on the idea of service to include self-sacrifice (Taylor, Mark, pp. 445-46). Patsch’s observation that the parallelism exhibited in 10.43a-44 is proof that it once circulated independently has some validity. But it is still not certain that originally the lutron-saying could not have been



1.   Servant of Yhwh 15

itself is composite: 10.45b, the lutron-saying, may not originally belong to 10.45a. Regardless of the tradition and literary history of the Mk 10.45, however, Jesus asserts that he has come as a servant (10.45a) and that his giving of himself as a lu/tron is the ultimate act of his service (10.45b).23 The case can be made that the saying in Mk 10.45b evokes the Hebrew text of Isa. 52.13–53.12, in which case Jesus is interpreting his death as that of the Isaian servant.24 The verb diakonh=sai (‘to serve’) hints at an allusion to ydb( (‘my servant’) in Isa. 52.13 and 53.11.25 Although diakonh=sai joined to 10.43-44, since, as just noted, 10.45 develops and transforms theme of service (Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, p. 75). 23. Hahn holds that the connection between 10.45 and 10.42-44 is secondary, and argues further that two units of tradition were added to 10.42-44 at two different times. First, the son of man saying was added (10.45a) and then later the lutron-saying interpreting the death of Jesus (10.45b) was appended to 10.45a. This means that 10.45 is composite (Hoheitstitel, pp. 54-66). 24. A. Médebielle, ‘La vie donnée en rançon’, Bib 4 (1923), pp. 3-40; Rudolf Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1938), pp. 24961; Joachim Jeremias, ‘Das Lösegeld für Viele (Mk 10,45)’, in Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zietgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), pp. 216-29 (227-29); Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology. The Proclamation of Jesus (New York: Scribners, 1971), pp. 292-94; C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Mark (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), pp. 34244; Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979), pp. 217-18; Eduard Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht. Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Verkündigung vom Sühntod Jesu Christi (FRLANT, 46; Göttingen: VandenHoeck & Ruprecht, 1955), pp. 118-20; A. Feuillet, ‘Le logion sur la rançon’, RSPT 51 (1967), pp. 365-402; Arens, HLQON-Sayings, pp. 136-41; France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 116-21; Scot McKnight, New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 159-75. 25. Werner Grimm proposes that lu/tron a)nti/ in Mk 10.45 corresponds to the Hebrew ‘to atone for’ (txt  rpk), which is nowhere to be found in Isa. 53 (Weil Ich dich liebe. Die Verkündigung und Deuterjesaja [Bern: Peter Lang, 1976], pp. 231-62; see Hampel, Menschensohn und historischer Jesus, pp. 302-45). (The term ‘many’ [polloi/], however, does allude to the several instances of  Mybr in Isa. 53.11, 12bis [pp. 236-37].) According to Grimm, the scriptural passage that Jesus has in mind when he refers to the giving of himself as a ‘ransom for many’ (lu/tron a)nti\ pollw~n) is Isa. 43.3-4 (see Prov. 21.18; Ps. 48.8-9; Job 33.24; 36.18). Isa. 43.3 promises that God will give certain nations as an atonement or ransom for Israel: Krpk  yttn/Kytxt. Parallel to this passage, in Isa. 43.4 the prophet says on behalf of God, ‘I will give man (Md)) in exchange for you’. Grimm suggests that Jesus’ version of Isa. 43.4 may have read ‘sons of man’, which would correspond to his use of ‘son of man’ in Mk 10.45. Or Jesus may simply have interpreted ‘man’ in this way. In other words, Jesus sees his death as the representative death for Israel foretold in Isa. 43.3-4. Grimm’s position would be convincing only if lu/tron a)nti/ could not be the Greek equivalent of the occurrence of M#$) in Isa. 53.10. Similarly, Maurice Casey argues that Jesus sees his death as expiatory along the lines of the Maccabean martyrs, without any allusion to Isa. 52.13–53.12 (From

16

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

does not occur in Isa. 52.13–53.12, and the verb or a cognate is not used in the lxx to translate the verb db(,26 it is probable that the two instances of the verb ‘to serve’ in Mk 10.45b allude to the Isaian servant. In fact, in the lxx, Targum, Peshitta and Symmachus, the verb ‘to serve’ is used in the fourth servant song rather than the noun ‘servant’, which supports the position that the use of the verb ‘to serve’ in Mk 10.45 alludes to the servant. The phrase dou=nai th\n yuxh\n au)tou= is the equivalent of the Hebrew w#$pn…My#&t-M) in Isa. 53.10, even though it is not a direct translation.27 The clearest connection to the fourth servant song is pollw~n, which is a translation of the Hebrew Mybr (Isa. 53.11, 12bis). The last and most important allusion to Isa. 52.13–53.12 is the phrase lu/tron a)nti/ (‘ransom for’), which arguably is the equivalent of the Hebrew M#$) in Isa. 53.10.28 Jesus interprets his impending death as the death of the Isaian servant; in other words it is a guilt offering, or a compensatory equivalent given to God for the sins of human beings. The description of the Isaian servant in the fourth servant song functions in the New Testament church as a means of interpreting the salvationhistorical significance of Christ’s death.29 Paul quotes the tradition that he received from his apostolic predecessors, which is a concise statement of the early kerygma: ‘Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; he was buried, and was raised on the third day according to the scriptures’ (15.3).30 The exact scriptural reference is not cited, but the leading candidate is the fourth Isaian servant song.31 The phrase ‘for our sins’ evokes Isa. Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology [Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991], pp. 64-67). 26. In lxx Isa. 52.13–53.12 ydb( is translated as o( pai=j mou (52.13; 53.11). See C.K. Barrett, ‘The Background of Mark 10:45’, in A.J.B. Higgins (ed.), New Testament Essays (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), pp. 1-18 (4). 27. The verb dou=nai is not a common translation of My#, the Hebrew Ntn or Aramaic bhy. Because of this, some have argued that in spite of similarities to Mk 10.45 dou=nai th\n yuxh\n au0tou= does not derive from Isa. 53.10, since all that the two have in common is ‘his soul’ (Hampel, Menschensohn und historischer Jesus, p. 322). Although it is similar to Isa. 53.12b, ‘to give his soul’ is said to be closer to Sir. 29.15; Exod. 21.30; 30.12 (p. 316). The cumulative effect of the evidence, however, must be considered. 28. See Barry D. Smith, Jesus’ Twofold Teaching about the Kingdom of God (NTM, 24; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press), pp. 264-65. 29. On this topic, see W. Zimmerli and J. Jeremias, The Servant of God (London: SCM Press, rev. edn, 1965); Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (London: James Clarke, 2nd edn, 1982), pp. 18-23; Peter Stuhlmacher, ‘Jesus as Versöhner’, in Versöhner, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1981); C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980). 30. Xristo_j a)pe/qanen u(pe\r tw~n a(martiw~n h(mw~n kata_ ta_j grafa/j ktl. 31. Some hold that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Isa. 52.13–53.12 was influential on the pre-Pauline interpretation of Jesus’ death. Contrary to Paul’s own



1.   Servant of Yhwh 17

53.5 ‘He was crushed for our sins’ in the Hebrew or Aramaic Targum.32 Evidence for the importance of Isa.. 52.13–53.12 in the early church’s interpretation of Jesus’ death also comes from the account of the apostle Philip and his encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch, who asks Philip to whom the prophet is referring in Isa. 53.8, himself or someone else (Acts 8.2639). Without hesitation Philip interprets the passage of Jesus: ‘Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this scripture he preached Jesus to him’ (8.35). There is no sense that his messianic interpretation of the passage is innovative or idiosyncratic.33 In Heb. 9.27-28, the author draws an analogy between human beings who must die and then be judged and Christ who appeared once and died to bear the sins of many and who will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are expecting him. The language of Heb. 9.28a ‘having been offered once to bear the sins of many’ is reminiscent of the Isaiah servant: ‘He bore the sins of many’ (lxx Isa. 53.12).34 For the author, claims (1 Cor. 15.3a), Hooker rejects 1 Cor. 15.3b-5 as an early kerygmatic formula (Jesus and the Servant). Comparing it to similar kerygmatic formulas in the Book of Acts (2.22-39; 3.12-21; 13.26-41), she concludes that the connection between Jesus’ death and the forgiveness of sins is a Pauline theological idiosyncrasy, since it is not present in these other kerygmatic formulas. Moreover, Hooker dismisses all of the alleged verbal and conceptual allusions to Isa. 53 in Paul’s letters on the grounds of insufficient evidence. (Only Heb. 9.28; Acts 8 and 1 Pet. 2.21-25 are demonstrably influenced by the motif of the suffering servant.) Patsch likewise rejects the alleged verbal and conceptual parallels between 1 Cor. 15.3b-5 and lxx Isa. 53 as unproven; he points out that the key word u(pe/r (‘on behalf of’) is absent in lxx Isa. 53 (Abendmahl, chap. 4). He also regards as circular the argument that the tradition cited in 1 Cor. 15.3b-5 is dependent upon Targum Isaiah. In his view, the notion of a sacrificial death for others is as derivable from Jewish martyr theology as from Isa. 53. In fact, according to Patsch, the phrase ‘according to scripture’ is a later addition to the formula in 1 Cor. 15.3b-5; originally, the formula did not refer to any particular Old Testament text (see also Hahn, Hoheitstitel, pp. 54-66). In spite of these objections, it seems that there is just enough evidence to conclude that Isa. 52.13–53.12 was influential on the pre-Pauline kerygmatic formulas. Paul himself does not use the Isaian servant motif, however, to interpret the death of Christ, at least in his extant writings. 32. lxx Isa. 53.5 has the almost identical and synonymous phrase dia_ ta_j a(marti/aj h(mw~n. The propositions dia& + accusative and u(pe/r + genitive are interchangeable in kerygmatic formulations, as Mt. 26.28 = Mk 14.24 demonstrate (H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975], p. 253). lxx Isa. 53 never uses the phrase u(pe\r tw~n a(martiw~n h(mw~n, even though the idea of the servant’s death for the benefit of others is referred to several times: Isa. 53.10 has peri\ a(marti/aj and 53.6 tai~j a(marti/aij h(mw~n (see Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], pp. 722-29; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, pp. 251-58). 33. F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (NICNT; Eerdmans, rev. edn, 1988), pp. 175-78. 34. Heb. 9.28 a#pac prosenexqei_j ei)j to_ pollw~n a)nenegkei~n a(marti/aj; lxx Isa. 53.12b au)to_j a(marti/aj pollw~n a)nh/negken.

18

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Christ is the Isaian servant, although he makes no other use of Isa. 52.13– 53.12 in his letter, preferring to base his interpretation of Christ’s suffering and death on Ps. 110.4 ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’. The author of 1 Peter exhorts his readers who are household servants to bear their unjust suffering patiently, following Christ’s example.35 He tells them, ‘Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in his steps’ (2.21). In the context, to suffer ‘for you’ (u(pe_r u(mw~n) means a suffering on behalf of you (see 1 Pet. 3.18).36 In clarification of this statement, Peter interprets Christ’s suffering as that of the Isaian servant. He quotes Isa. 53.9b ‘who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth’ as descriptive of Christ’s willingness to suffer unjustly.37 He continues by alluding to Isa. 53.4, 11, 12 and 53.5 in his description of the purpose for which Christ willingly suffered: ‘Who himself bore our sins in his body on the tree…for by his wounds you were healed’ (2.24).38 To bear the sins of another is to take those sins and their consequences upon oneself. By the phrase ‘in his body’, Peter clarifies that Christ’s suffering was physical. He also includes a reference to the means by which Christ died, ‘on the tree’, by which is meant crucifixion.39 In addition, 1 Pet. 2.23 ‘While being reviled, he did not revile in return; while suffering, he uttered no threats’ may reflect Isa. 53.7 ‘Yet he did not open his mouth’. Early Christian theologians make even greater and more explicit use of the fourth servant song than the New Testament does. In their dispute with Jews who reject Jesus as Israel’s Messiah because he was crucified, they endeavor to explain why God allowed the Messiah to suffer and die, arguing that this was part of God’s salvation-historical purpose for him, as prophesied in particular in the fourth servant song. In his debate with the Jew Tryphon, Justin Martyr asserts that Tryphon’s objection to the Christian doctrine of a crucified Messiah would be understandable if there was nothing in scripture about it. In his view, however, Isaiah 53 clearly foretells the 35. Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 207-211. 36. Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), pp. 62-64. 37. Peter uses the term a(marti&a rather than a)nomi&a in lxx Isa. 53.9b. These terms, however, are more or less synonymous in lxx Isaiah (see the parallelism in 53.5) (Paul Achtemeier, 1 Peter [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996], p. 200). 38. o$j ta_j a(marti/aj h(mw~n au)to_j a)nh/negken e0n tw~ sw&mati au)tou~ e)pi_ to_ cu&lon…ou{ tw~| mw&lwpi i)a&qhte. See lxx Isa. 53.4 ou{toj ta_j a(marti/aj h(mw~n fe/rei (Heb. )#&n  )wh  wnylx); Isa. 53.11 kai_ ta_j a(marti/aj au)tw~n au)to_j a)noi/sei (Heb. lbsy  )wh  Mtnw(); Isa. 53.12 kai_ au)to_j a(marti/aj pollw~n a)nh&negken (Heb. )#&n Mybr-)+x )wh); and Isa. 53.5 tw~| mw&lwpi au)tou~ h(mei~j i0aqhmen. 39. See Acts 5.30; 10.39.



1.   Servant of Yhwh 19

Messiah’s suffering and death. He writes, ‘If Christ was not to suffer, and the prophets had not foretold that he would be led to death on account of the sins of the people, and be dishonored and scourged, and reckoned among the transgressors, and as a sheep be led to the slaughter, whose generation, the prophet says, no man can declare, then you would have good cause to wonder’ (Dial. 89). He prefaces a quotation from the Isaian text with the following comment: ‘For Isaiah did not send you to a bath, there to wash away murder and other sins, which not even all the water of the sea were sufficient to purge; but, as might have been expected, this was that saving bath of the ancient time which followed those who repented, and who no longer were purified by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer, or by the offerings of fine flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ, and through his death, who died for this very reason’ (Dial. 13; see 62). Quoting from Isa. 52.13–53.12, Daniel 9 and Ps. 110, he further claims that Jesus has two advents, one for the purpose of suffering and dying, as described in Isa. 52.13–53.12, and the other to reign (32). Similarly, against his Jewish opponents, Athanasius quotes several passages from Isaiah 53 as unmistakably prophesying the death of Christ, who is the incarnate Word (Incarn. 6.34). He summarizes what Isaiah 53 states about the purpose of Christ’s suffering: ‘He endures it, they say, not for his own sake, but for the sake of bringing immortality and salvation to all’. In his view the outcome of the servant’s suffering and death is salvation in the form of immortality. In his explanation of the purpose of the incarnation, Athanasius quotes from Isa. 53.4 to prove that Christ bore our sins in his body, in which the deity dwelt (Ar. 3.31; see Incarn. 5). The fact that the prophet says that he bore rather than simply remedied our infirmities or sins is said to imply that the Word was truly in the body. Origen explains to his Jewish opponent Celsus that the Messiah’s suffering and death and the reason for it was prophesied in the fourth Isaian servant song: ‘Because it was for the benefit of mankind that he should die on their account, and should suffer stripes because of his condemnation’. He then quotes from Isa. 52.13–53.8 (Con. Cels. 1.54). Later he interprets Jesus’ passion as fulfilling Isa. 53.7: ‘For he neither uttered nor committed anything that was improper, but was truly “led as a sheep to the slaughter, and was dumb as a lamb before the shearer”; and the Gospel testifies that he opened not his mouth’ (2.59). In his commentary on Jesus’ trial in John, Origen includes a paraphrase of Isa. 53.4 ‘who bore our sins and infirmities’ for the purpose of proving that Christ died for others (Comm. Jn. 28). He further explains that Christ received the sins of the whole world in order to loose, fulfil and annul them. He then cites 1 Pet. 2.22 (Isa. 53.9b) in order to prove that Christ was without sin, and this is followed by 2 Cor. 5.21, which he considers to be coordinate in meaning: being sinless qualifies Christ to be made sin so that human beings could become

20

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

the righteousness of God in him. Origen also cites Isa. 53.3, 7 and 8 to make the point that Christ suffered and died for sinful human beings. Tertullian likewise uses Isa. 52.13–53.12 (53.2-4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12) along with many other Old Testament texts in order to prove to Jewish detractors that the Messiah’s suffering, death and resurrection were foretold in scripture (Adv. Iud. 10, 13, 14). He too uses the theological device of two advents of Christ to explain the two sets of opposing statements made about Christ: Christ as suffering and dying, which includes Isa. 53, and Christ as triumphant and reigning (14). Other early church fathers make use the fourth servant song in their explanations of the salvation-historical purpose of Jesus’ suffering and death. In his exhortation to the Corinthians to be humble like Christ, Clement quotes Isa. 53.1–53.12 and Ps. 22.6-8, assuming that both texts describes Jesus’ suffering and death (1 Clem. 16). In the Letter of Barnabas, Jesus’s death is said to bring the possibility of forgiveness: ‘For to this end the Lord endured to deliver his flesh unto corruption, that by the forgiveness of sins we might be cleansed, which cleansing is through the blood of his sprinkling’ (5.1). Isaiah 53.5, 7b is then cited as a scriptural proof of this (5.2). Irenaeus proves the sinlessness of Christ by citing 1 Pet. 2.22, which is dependent upon Isa. 53.9b (Adv. haer. 5.20.2). Cyprian echoes the fourth servant song when he refers to the incarnate Christ as being innocent but bearing the sins of others (Isa. 53.4) (De bono pat. 6; Ep. 58.6). Likewise Cyril of Jerusalem quotes from Isa. 53 in his Catechetical Lectures. He asserts that Christ was truly crucified, not for his own sins, but for the sins of human beings; he then adds that he ‘was despised of men’, which seems to be an allusion to Isa. 53.3 (4.9-10).40 Alluding to 1 Pet. 1.18-19, he asserts that Christ is a sheep whose precious blood cleanses the world from sin; his use of the clause ‘which is led before the shearers, and knows when to be silent’ indicates that he interprets the reference to sheep (i.e. lamb [a)mno&j]) in 1 Pet. 1.18-19 to be the Isaian servant (Isa. 53.7) (10.3) (see the allusion to Isa. 53.3 ‘despised of men’ in 4.10). In addition, Cyril writes that, whereas human beings die for their own sins, Christ being sinless died for the sins of others. He claims that this was prophesied in Isa. 53, as indicated by 1 Pet. 2.22 (Isa. 53.9b) (Cat. lect. 13.3). Later he combines Zech. 9.11, Isa. 53.4-5, 9, 1 Cor. 15.3-4 in order to describe the soteriological benefit resulting from Christ’s death: ‘He bears our sins, and endures grief for us, and with his stripes we are healed’ (13.34). Basil incorporates Isaiah 53 in his description of the purpose of Christ’s suffering, intertextually connecting it with Gal. 3.13: ‘He took on himself our weaknesses and carried our misfortunes; he was bruised for us, 40. katefronh&qh me\n u(po_ a)nqrw&pou.



1.   Servant of Yhwh 21

to heal us by his wounds; he delivered us from the curse by becoming a curse for us. He underwent for us a shameful death in order to lead us into life everlasting’ (Reg. fus. 4). Likewise Theodoret understands Isa. 53.4-12 in light of Deut. 21.23 (Gal. 3.13). Commenting on Isa. 53.4, he writes, ‘We should have died for our sins…but he died for us… For us he became cursed; to save us from the curse of the Law he became a curse’ (In Isaiam 53.4-12). He also cites Isa. 53.9 as a proof text that Christ was sinless and Isa. 53.4 that Christ assumed the sins of others as his own (Quaest. in Num. 9). Along the same lines, Chrysostom claims that there are many Old Testament texts that predict that the savior would die, including Isa. 53.8, 6, 5 (In ep. ad 1 Cor. Hom 38.3). Finally, in his commentary on Isaiah 53, Cyril of Alexandria identifies Christ with the servant and intertextually interprets it in light of several New Testament texts, such as Rom. 8.32; Ps. 40.6 (Heb. 10.5); Jn 1.29; and 2 Cor. 5.1415. He says that, in order to destroy it, Christ the true lamb removes the sin of the world (Jn 1.29). He thereby frees the whole world from death and sin; he suffers on behalf all as the equivalent (o( pa&ntwn a)ntaciw&teroj pe/ponqen) (In Isaiam 53). Hilary asserts that Christ suffered physically for others: ‘He suffered then in his body after the manner of our infirm body, yet bore the sufferings of our body in the power of his own body’ (De Trin. 10.47). Scriptural evidence for this is identified as Isa. 53.4-5. It is clear that he understands the Isaian text as meaning that the sinless Christ assumed the sins of human beings: ‘He bore our sins, that is, he assumed our body of sin, but was himself sinless. He was sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin, bearing sin indeed in his flesh but our sin.’ He then draws the confusing conclusion that Christ did not feel pain with the body that he assumed (see 10.23; Tr. ps. 53.12). The reasons for this seem to be that Christ was sinless and that his divine nature was impassible. He writes, ‘It is then a mistaken opinion of human judgment, which thinks he felt pain because he suffered… So too he felt pain for us, but not with our senses; he was found in fashion as a man, with a body that could feel pain, but his nature could not feel pain’. Hilary’s view borders on what later is known as Nestorianism: that Christ had two separate natures. Finally, in his letter to the Christians at Vercellae, Ambrose shows the influence of the interpretation of Christ as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek and joins to this Isa. 53 and other messianicallyinterpreted biblical texts (Ep. 53.47, 48, 49). He draws upon material from Hebrews 5, where Ps. 110.4 is interpreted in light of Ps. 2.7, and implicitly combines it with Isa. 53.12b: ‘He bore the sin of all’ (peccatum tulit omnium) (53.47). Alluding to Heb. 5.1-5, he says that Christ was called a High Priest and then combines the idea of Jesus as High Priest with a messianic interpretation of Isa. 53.10a: ‘For he himself, it is said, bears our weakness (gestat infirmatetem)’.

22

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

2. Christ as High Priest and Sacrifice in Hebrews a. Priest Forever according to the Order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110.4) The author of the Letter to the Hebrews uses the figure of Melchizedek in order to explicate the soteriological benefit made possible by Jesus’ death. He interprets Ps. 110.4 ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’ as referring to Christ, and intertextually connects this passage to other scriptures, such as Ps. 2.7, Lev. 16; Jer. 31.31-34, Ps. 40.6-8 and Exod. 24.3.41 He assumes as his point of departure his readers’ prior belief that Ps. 110.1 ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’ is addressed to the Davidic Messiah (Heb. 1.13).42 Since the same individual is being addressed in it, the author concludes that Ps. 110.4 must also be addressed to the Davidic Messiah.43 It follows that the Davidic Messiah is not only kingly in his function (Ps. 110.1), which his readers already accept, but also priestly (Ps. 110.4). In the author’s view, Melchizedek prefigures the unification of two offices in one person, which should come to pass in ‘these last days’ (Heb. 1.2).44 Beginning in Hebrews 7, the author argues that the priesthood promised in Ps. 110.4 supersedes the Levitical priesthood; the former is the eschatological replacement of the latter.45 In his view, the Levitical priesthood is inferior and needs to be replaced by another priesthood, that according to

41. G.W. Buchanan, claims that Hebrews is a midrash on Ps. 110 (TTo the Hebrews [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972], pp. xii-xxii). This is somewhat of an exaggeration but not that far from the truth; Ps. 110 forms the basis of much of what he says about Christ. It is probable that the readers recognize this passage as messianic, and for this reason the author uses it in order to explain that Christ is more than they think he is. On the use of Ps. 110 in early Christian exegesis, see D. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS, 18; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973). 42. Ps. 110 is royal psalm and promises to the new king that he will rule absolutely, as if he were sitting at God’s right hand. He is assured of divine assistance in being victorious over his enemies, the rulers of other nations (Ps. 110.2b, 5-6) (see J. Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest [EUST, 693; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2000], chap. 2). Jesus interprets Ps. 110.1 messianically (Mk 12.36; 14.62 pars), and is followed in this by the early church (Acts 2.34-35; see 1 Cor. 15.25) (see David R. Anderson, The King-Priest of Psalm 110 in Hebrews [SBL, 21; New York: Peter Lang, 2001], chap. 4). There is no evidence yet, however, that Ps. 110.1 was interpreted messianically in second-Temple Judaism (contrary to P. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa [CBQMS; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981], p. 53). 43. On Ps. 110, see J. Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, chap. 2. 44. See Hugh Martin, The Atonement (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1870), pp. 69-95; James Denney, The Death of Christ (New York and London: Hodder and Stoughton, rev. edn, 1911), pp. 148-73. 45. J. Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, pp. 203-207; Marie Isaacs, Sacred Space (JSNTSup, 73; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 144-64.



1.   Servant of Yhwh 23

the order of Melchizedek.46 (In Heb. 7.15 he uses the synonymous phrase ‘according to the likeness of Melchizedek’.) He begins with a counterfactual conditional sentence: ‘Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood…what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek?’ (7.11). The answer that he expects is that perfection (telei&wsij) was not attained through the Levitical priesthood. By ‘perfection’ is meant being made acceptable to God by means expiation, which is what the Levitical sacrifices and rituals were thought to accomplish.47 The author claims that the Levitical priesthood must be imperfect because there is another priesthood referred to in Ps. 110.4—the priesthood to which the son of God was appointed as the result of his suffering (Heb. 7.11).48 That this priesthood is not according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchizedek, implies that the Levitical priesthood was deficient and needed to be replaced. Later the author says that the Law was only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form (or ‘the form itself’) of these things (Heb. 10.1a). The use of the adverbial phrase ‘the same sacrifices year by year’ suggests that he has in mind primarily the annual rite of the Day of Atonement (10.1b). The author's point is that the Levitical sacrificial system, and, in particular, the Day of Atonement, did not actually expiate for the participants and thereby make them acceptable to God, which is what he means by ‘to perfect’.49 According to him, the Law as pertaining to the sacrificial system only anticipated the true means of expiation in the time of fulfilment: the death of Christ.50 He goes on to say that the sacrifices prescribed by the Law cannot expiate at all, or as he put it, cannot make perfect those 46. On the role of Melchizedek in the theological argumentation in Hebrews, see Friedrich Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbrief als Schriftausleger [BU, 4; Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1968], pp. 130-59 and Gerd Theißen, Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief [StNT; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969], pp. 13-33; 123-52. Based on 11QMelchizedek, M. de Jonge and A. van der Woude argue that the author views Melchizedek as an archangel who appeared to Abraham (‘11QMelchizedek and the New Testament’, NTS 12 [1966], pp. 301-26). See also M. Delcor, ‘Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, JSJ 2 (1971), pp. 115-35; J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11’, JBL 86 (1967), pp. 25-41. 47. This is a different use of the term ‘perfection’ than was applied to Christ (see Heb. 2.10; 5.9; 7.28) (see also Heb. 9.9; 10.1, 14; 11.40; 12.23). 48. By the word ‘order’ in the phrase ‘according to the order of Melchizedek’ (derived from Ps. 110.4) the author means ‘type’: a type of high priesthood. He differentiates the type of priesthood that Melchizedek has, which Jesus now shares, with the type of priesthood that Aaron and his descendants have (described in 7.11 by means of the parallel phrase ‘according to the order of Aaron’). 49. See also Heb. 7.11, 19; 9.9; 10.14; 11.40; 12.23. 50. See Heb. 1.1 ‘in these last days’; 2.5 ‘world to come’; 9.10 ‘time of correction’; 9.26 ‘end of the ages’.

24

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

who approach (the altar).51 Proof for the assertion in Heb. 10.1 that the Day of Atonement (and, of course, other means of atonement prescribed by the Law) cannot perfect the offerer is the fact that the sacrificial system has not come to an end, but still continues (Heb. 10.1b-2). If the sacrifices did take away the guilt resulting from sin, then the sacrifices would not continue to be offered (see Heb. 9.14). He contrasts Christ’s once-and-for-all sacrifice with the on-going nature of the sacrifices offered at the Temple, and concludes that these sacrifices are ineffectual precisely because they are on-going. The author explains that, if the ritual of the Day of Atonement had been effective then the ‘worshippers’, or participants, would no longer ‘still have consciousness of sins’. He concludes that they were not actually ‘cleansed once and for all’, by which he means permanently cleansed from sins, and were aware of this fact.52 The author seems to be assuming that the Israelites always knew that ‘it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins’, as he says in Heb. 10.4, although he does not explain why this is true.53 According to him, the Day of Atonement actually effects ‘a remembrance of sin year by year’ (Heb. 10.3). On the assumption that Christ’s death alone is truly efficacious, the sacrifices offered at the Temple on the Day of Atonement, year after year, function only as a reminder of sin, which is not removed by animal sacrifices. In Heb. 10.1114, the author again contrasts the work of Christ as High Priest with the work of the earthly priests. The latter offers sacrifices continually that do not take away sins; the former, on the other hand, ‘offered one sacrifice for sins for all time’, and then sat down at the right hand of God, a position of exaltation and authority, which is an allusion to Ps 110.1 (Heb. 10.12). The author of Hebrews causally connects Jesus’ obedient suffering with his priestly function.54 He first explains in Heb. 2.17 that the Davidic Messiah had to become exactly like his brothers (and sisters), i.e., as fully human, 51. See John M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests (JSNTSup, 49; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), pp. 95-103. 52. See Heb. 9.14: ‘The blood of Jesus…cleanses our conscience from dead works’; Heb. 9.23: ‘Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these’. 53. On the biblical origin of the phrase ‘to take away sin’ (a)fairei=n a(marti/aj), see Exod. 34.7, 9; Lev. 10.17; Num. 14.18; Isa. 1.16; Sir. 47.11. The radical nature of what is said in 10.4 may be consistent with the prophetic critique of Temple cult, but goes far beyond it (1 Sam. 15.22; Isa. 1.10-15; 66.3; Jer. 7.21-23; Hos. 6.6; Amos 5.12-25; see also Pss. 40.6-8; 50.7-15; 51.16-17; 69.30-31). 54. It is likely that the author is attempting to correct the view of his readers that Jesus’ suffering was irrelevant to his role as Davidic messiah. Their view may have been simply that Jesus suffered because of the blindness of the Jewish authorities, but God vindicated him by raising him from the dead and exalting him to his right hand (see Acts 2.14-36).



1.   Servant of Yhwh 25

in order to help them by becoming a High Priest and ‘expiate for the sins of the people’ (see also the previous reference to this in Heb. 1.3b: ‘when he had effected a cleansing of sins’).55 The point that the author is making is that the fact Jesus was temporarily made lower than the angels insofar as he appeared in human history as a human being—‘in blood and flesh’—was necessary in order for him to provide the possibility of expiation. Providing such a possibility makes Jesus a High Priest. Then in Heb. 5.5-6, the author argues that what is true of the Levitical High Priests expressed in Heb. 5.4 is also true of the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, Christ.56 He begins with Christ’s right to the appointment as High Priest; like Aaron (Heb. 5.4) (and all other legitimate High Priests) Christ did not glorify himself in becoming High Priest, but received it from God (Heb. 5.5-6).57 To prove this the author quotes Ps. 2.7, a psalm interpreted messianically in the second-Temple period: the Davidic messiah is appointed ‘son’ by God and does not presume to take it himself (see Heb. 1.5).58 The author conceives Christ’s status as son as an acquired status: Christ is proclaimed to be the son, i.e., Davidic Messiah (as Ps. 2.7 says of the Messiah) after his appearance in human history. In Heb. 5.6, the author connects Ps. 2 with Ps. 110.4, another psalm quoted earlier as messianic (Heb. 1.14 = Ps. 110.1). Insofar as it is established that he is being addressed in Ps. 110.1, what is said in Ps. 110.4 must also be addressed to the Davidic Messiah.59 Since the Davidic Messiah in Ps. 110.4 is declared to be a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek and since he is also being referred to in Ps. 2.7 as being appointed to this role by God and not presuming to take it for himself, what is said of the Davidic Messiah in the latter can be imported into the former. In particular, his appointment to the role of Davidic Messiah (Ps. 2.7; see Ps. 110.1) is also his appointment to the role of priest according to the order 55. eij) to _ i9laskesqai & taj_ a (martiaj & tou ~ laou ~. In this usage, it is sins that are expiated and not the sinner, but the meaning is the same. The phrase ‘to expiate for sins’ does not occur in the lxx, but other similar constructions do. In Ps. 65.3 (lxx 64.4) the psalmist declares, ‘You expiate for our transgressions’. In Ps. 25.11 [lxx 24.11], the dative is used rather than the accusative when the author petitions the Lord ‘Expiate for my sin’ (see also Pss. 78.38 [lxx 77.38] and 79.9 [lxx 78.9]. In Ben Sira, there occurs the verb e0cilaskomai & with a word meaning ‘sin’ for its object in the dative (Sir. 3.3, 30) and accusative (Sir. 5.6; 20.28; 28.5; 34[lxx 31].19. 56. In Heb. 5.5, the author begins to refer to ‘Jesus the son of God’ (Heb. 4.14) as ‘Christ’. 57. See Sir. 45.20; 2 Macc. 14.7 for the term ‘glory’ (do&ca) used of the functions of the High Priest. 58. For the messianic interpretation of Ps. 2, see Ps. Sol. 17.23 = Ps. 2.9; 1QSa 2.1112 = Ps. 2.7; 4Q174 = Ps. 2.1; Acts 4.25-26 = Ps. 2.1-2; Acts 13.33 = Ps. 2.7; see also 4 Ezra 7.28-29; 13.37, 52; 14.9). See J. Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, pp. 63-64. The author has already interpreted Ps. 2.7 as messianic in Heb. 1.5. 59. On Ps. 110, see J. Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, chap. 2.

26

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

of Melchizedek (Ps. 110.4), in the same way that Aaron was appointed High Priest by God.60 Continuing his argument, in Heb. 5.7-10 the author elaborates on his assertion that Jesus as the ‘son’ is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. He says that ‘in the days of his flesh’,61 Christ offered up ‘prayers and supplications to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence (for God)’.62 Nevertheless, God did not save him from death, and this for a reason: his suffering was the means of his being perfected (teleiwqei\j) (Heb. 5.7). The author is alluding to the event of Jesus in Gethsemane just before his arrest (see Mk 14.3336 || Mt. 26.37-39; Lk. 22.42-44).63 In Heb. 5.8, he makes the point that, ‘in spite of being son’, Christ learned obedience through his sufferings: he learned to submit to God’s will in his suffering, which would lead to his death.64 This is why he was not saved from death, even though he was heard ‘because of his reverence’. This learning of submission led to his perfection (‘he became perfected’). In other words, his obedience to God in suffering was the means by which he became qualified (‘perfected’) to be a High Priest.65 This is consistent with his earlier statement in Heb. 2.9 that

60. This is an instance of the application of the interpretive rule later called gezerah shavah (‘an equal category’): an Old Testament passage that has verbal or conceptual similarities with another Old Testament passage can be interpreted in light of that passage, so that meaning can be imported into the interpreted passage from the one to which it is similar. In the case of Ps. 2.7 and Ps. 110.4, what is similar is that both texts are interpreted as messianic. Not surprisingly, the author subsequently names Jesus as son in relation to his role as High Priest (Heb. 5.8-10; 7.28). 61. The expression ‘days of his flesh’ is a genitive of quality: his fleshy days or fleshly period of time. It refers to Christ’s historical appearance, the period of time before his exaltation. The use of ‘flesh’ to describe Jesus’ historical manifestation implies Jesus’ identity with the realm of human weakness and sin, although the author holds that Jesus was without sin (Heb. 4.15). 62. The preposition a)po& (from) in the phrase a)po_ th~j eu)labei/aj (‘out of reverence’) has a causal meaning (5.7). The claim that in Heb. 5.7-9 the author comes under the influence of Ps. 116 (= lxx Pss. 114, 115]) seems tenuous since there are not enough parallels between the two texts (A. Strobel, ‘Die Psalmengrundlage der GethsemaneParallele Hbr 5, 7ff.’, ZNW 45 [1954] pp. 252-66; Schröger, Verfasser, pp. 121-22). For example, the fact that in Heb. 5.7 the same verb is found as in Ps. 116.1 (lxx 114.1) seems coincidental. 63. See J. Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, pp. 65-77, 219-33. This is contrary to J. Scholer who sees a general reference to Jesus’ earthly existence (Proleptic Priests, p. 87). 64. William R.G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester (WMANT, 53; Neukirchen– Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), pp. 97-111. 65. David G. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection [SNTSMS, 47; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992]. It is probably no coincidence that the expression ‘to



1.   Servant of Yhwh 27

‘He tasted death for everyone’.66 The idiom ‘to taste death’ means to experience death, including the suffering preliminary to death. For this reason, the author says that Jesus as priest became the ‘cause of eternal salvation for those obedient to him’ (Heb. 5.9).67 To be ‘the cause of eternal salvation’ is synonymous with being ‘the author of salvation’ (Heb. 2.10).68 As the priest according to the order of Melchizedek, Jesus does his high-priestly work by his own suffering and death. Finally, in Heb. 5.10, the author concludes by saying that Jesus was designated by God as a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek because of his being perfected through suffering.69 (It should be noted that in Heb. 5.10 the author changes ‘priest’ in Ps. 110.4 to ‘High Priest’ because of his interest in comparing Jesus to the Aaronic High Priests.) 3. Christ as Sacrifice As already intimated, according to the author of Hebrews, Christ functions as High Priest according the order of Melchizedek insofar as by means of his own suffering and death he offers himself as the definitive sacrifice for sins. Early in his letter, the author explains that the son in his historical appearance makes possible the cleansing of sins, after which he assumes his position of authority at the right hand of God (Ps. 110.1) (1.3b). The idea of ‘cleansing’ (kaqarismo&j) is a distinctive way in which the author expresses the soteriological benefit of Christ’s death, using imagery derived from the cult (see lxx Exod. 29.36-37; 30.10; Lev. 12.4; 16.19, 30; Prov. 14.9).70 perfect the hands’ is used to describe the consecration of priests (Exod. 29.9, 33, 35; Lev. 4.5; 8.33; 16.32; 21.10; Num. 3.3). 66. See Heb. 2.10: ‘through sufferings to perfect’. 67. The verb teleiwqei_j precedes logically and grammatically the main verb e0ge/neto: ‘And having been perfected, he became’ etc. 68. Only in Heb. 5.9 does the author use the term ‘eternal salvation’, but it is synonymous with his use of the unmodified ‘salvation’ elsewhere in the letter (1.14; 2.3, 10; 6.9; 9.28). For the author, salvation is the goal of eternal happiness towards which believers are moving; he describes this as the age to come (2.5), glory (2.10), rest (4.9-11), the good things to come (10.1) and unshakeable kingdom (12.27-28). In 11.7 he describes Noah’s deliverance as salvation, which implicitly is an assertion that Noah’s deliverance is typological of ‘eternal salvation’. The phrase ‘cause of salvation’ used in various senses occurs in Polyb. 1.43.2; Diod. 4.82.3; Philo, Spec. leg. 1.252; Agr. 96; Virt. 202; Josephus, Ant. 14.136. 69. On the meaning of the phrase ‘according to the order of Melchizedek’, see Anderson, The King-Priest of Psalm 110 in Hebrews, pp. 54-59. It should be noted that in 5.10 the author changes ‘priest’ in Ps. 110.4 to ‘High Priest’ because of his interest in comparing Jesus to the Aaronic High Priests. 70. A similar construction occurs in lxx Job 7.21 ‘Why will you not effect…cleansing for my sins’.

28

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

The genitive phrase ‘for sins’ has the force of an ablative of separation, so that it is the sins that are removed.71 Later in the letter, alluding to the Day of Atonement, the author of Hebrews further explains that Christ does not come into the holy of holies by means of the blood of goats and bulls, but by means of his own blood (9.11-12).72 Christ’s death is understood as the typological fulfilment of the sacrifice of the bull and the goat on the Day of Atonement, whose blood was sprinkled on the lid of the ark of the covenant and in front of it, in order to expiate first for Aaron and his family, by means of a bull, and then for the Israelites, by means of a goat (see 9.13; 9.19; 10.4).73 The author is making use of the typological connection between the holy of holies and heaven, the place where God dwells (Heb. 9.8, 24) in his messianic interpretation of Ps. 110.1, 4.74 Since Christ has been exalted to the right hand of God in heaven (Ps. 110.1: ‘Sit at my right hand’ etc.) and the holy of holies is a type of heaven, then it can be said that by entering heaven Christ has typologically entered into the holy of holies (Heb. 9.12b) (see Heb. 4.4 ‘a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens’). Furthermore, since Christ is said to be a High Priest (Ps. 110.4: ‘You are a priest forever’ etc.) then his entrance into the holy of holies, i.e., heaven, must be a type of the entrance of the Aaronic High Priest into the earthly holy of holies, which occurs only once a year on the Day of Atonement for the purpose of expiation. So it follows that Christ’s entrance into heaven (Ps. 110.1) has for its purpose the possibility of genuine expiation. But, just as on the Day of Atonement, there can be no expiation without sacrifice, so it is said that as High Priest Christ enters the holy of holies with his own blood, by which is meant sacrificial blood (9.12). The implication is that Christ’s death is sacrificial. The fact that the author uses the adverb e0fa&pac (‘once and for all’) stresses the uniqueness and singularity of Christ’s sacrificial act, unlike the repeated animal sacrifices. In Heb. 9.13-14, arguing from minor to major, the author concludes that, since the blood of bulls and goats and the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer (Numbers 19) were effectual, how much more effectual is the blood of Christ, by which he means Christ’s obedience unto death.75 He seems to have moved from his comparison of Christ as High Priest who offers 71. Jean Hering, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Epworth Press, 1970), p. 6. 72. The use of the preposition dia& is instrumental. i.e. ‘by means of’, unlike its use in Heb. 9.11b; see its use in Heb. 2.3, 14; 6.11, 18; 7.11, 21, 25; 9.14, 26; 11.4, 7, 33, 39; 12.1, 28; 13.2, 15, 21. 73. Contrary to Georg Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes [WUNT, 2/212; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2006], pp. 283-91. 74. On the idea of a heavenly tabernacle, see Otfried Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes (WUNT, 1/14; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1972), pp. 50-73. 75. Loader thinks that the two motifs of the High Priest as intercessor in heaven and as offering atonement on earth through his own death are in tension with each other and



1.   Servant of Yhwh 29

his own blood on the Day of Atonement (Heb. 9.12) to comparing Christ’s soteriological effectiveness to sacrifices in general (‘the blood of bulls and goats’) and the ritual of the ashes of the red heifer.76 (The phrase ‘blood of Christ’ means his willing death.) The author then adds that the blood of Christ cleanses ‘our consciences from dead works’, by which he means that by his sacrificial suffering and death Christ expiates for human beings, who are guilty as a result of their disobedience to God, expressed as ‘dead works’ or things done that lead to death.77 In Heb. 9.21-28, the author discusses further Jesus’ entrance into the heavenly sanctuary to offer himself as the definitive sacrifice—the offering of his own blood as a one-time sacrifice (see Heb. 8.16a). In Heb. 9.21, he says that Moses sprinkled the tabernacle and the vessels used for worship with the same blood that he used to sprinkle on the people and the book of the covenant, purifying them (Heb. 9.20). In Heb. 9.22a, the author adds that, according to the Law, almost everything is purified with blood (see Lev. 8.15, 19, 24, 30; Exod. 29.10-21). In other words, the removal of ritual impurity and the guilt of sin generally requires sacrifice. The author then concludes that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin; he has in mind the fact that in the Torah expiation and forgiveness is only obtainable through sacrifice (Heb. 9.22b). This is in accordance with the principle enunciated in Lev. 17.11 ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to expiate for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that expiates’.78 He explains that ‘Christ did not enter (the) holy of holies made with hands, an antitype of the true one, but into heaven itself’ (9.24). From this it is again clear that for the author heaven is what typologically corresponds to the earthly holy of holies, insofar as God dwells in heaven. For Christ to be in the heavenly tabernacle is a typological way of saying that he is in the presence of God.79 represent two stages of Christological development (Sohn und Hoherpriester, pp. 20322). With typology, however, such tensions are tolerable. 76. The red heifer is to be brought to Eleazar, the son of Aaron (Num. 19.3), who then sacrifices it and burns it; in later tradition, it is assumed that the High Priest performs the sacrifice (Philo, Spec. leg. 1.267-72; Josephus, Ant. 4.79). 77. See Heb. 6.1b for the other occurrence of the phrase ‘dead works’. 78. The term ‘shedding of blood’ (ai(matekxusi/a) may be coined by the author, since this is its first occurrence in Greek texts (9.22). Nevertheless, there are expressions similar to the phrase ‘shedding of blood’ in the lxx: 3 Kgdms 18.28; Sir. 27.15. The connection between Exod. 24.4-8 and the idea of forgiveness is probably the tradition in second-Temple Judaism that Moses’ sprinkling of blood on the people was an atoning act (Targum Onqelos and Targum Yerushalmi I). 79. F.F. Bruce, Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 220-21; contrary to L.D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews (The Epistle to the Hebrews [SNTSMS, 65; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990], p. 28).

30

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

This interpretation is consistent with the next clause: ‘Now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf’.80 Christ’s ‘appearance’ before God, or his entrance into heaven itself, is as High Priest, who mediates expiation and forgiveness to human beings. According to the author, Christ offered himself as a sacrifice once, unlike the sacrifices offered by the earthly High Priests, which are repeated every year, a reference to the ritual of the Day of Atonement. The blood offered by the earthly High Priests is not their own, but that of animals (Heb. 9:25).81 Once again, the author uses the imagery of the Day of Atonement to express the salvation-historical superiority of Christ as mediator of the true expiation and forgiveness made possible through his death. The author then explains that, if his one-time sacrifice were not sufficient, Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world (Heb. 9.26a). But this was not necessary, for Christ appeared at the end of the age once and for all ‘to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself’.82 Having died and been raised from the dead, Christ enters heaven itself, which is the type of the earthly sanctuary,83 and there serves as High Priest insofar as his death is the typological fulfilment of the Levitical sacrificial system.84 To ‘remove sin’ denotes making expiation for human beings or for their sins. Later in Heb. 10.5-10, the author explains Christ’s death as a sacrifice by means of a messianic interpretation of Ps. 40.6-8, quoting from the lxx (Ps. 39.7-9). He understands this psalm of David as being the words of the Messiah, the greater David.85 There is a negative view of sacrifices assumed in Ps. 40.6-9, which is consistent with the author’s messianic re-interpretation of the psalm. According to him, when he comes into the world, the Messiah says that God does not desire sacrifices, but a body God has prepared for him. It is at this point that the version in the lxx and Hebrews differs from 80. Aelred Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews (St. Meinrad, IN: Grail Publications, 1960), pp. 180-92. 81. The author explains the earthly High Priest enters into the sanctuary with ‘in blood that is not his own’ (e0n ai$mati a)lloti/w|). The preposition e0n (‘in’) is used instrumentally. The implication is that Christ enters typologically into the holy of holies with his own blood (see Heb. 9.11-12). 82. ei)j a)qe/thsin th~j a(marti/aj dia_ th~j qusi/aj au)tou~ 83. For the author an antitype is that which is formed after a pattern and so is a figure of something else; the original is the type. 84. This language in Heb. 9.26 presupposes the Jewish understanding of history into two ages: at the end of the age, God sends the Messiah to provide the possibility of true forgiveness and thus to inaugurate the age to come (or some synonymous term), the period of eschatological salvation, or the new covenant (see 1.2). For parallels to the phrase ‘at the end of the ages’ (e0pi\ suntelei/a| tw~n ai)w&nwn), see lxx Dan. 9.27; 12.13; T. Zebu. 9.9; T. Benj. 11.3; T. Levi 10.2; in the New Testament, see Mt. 13.39, 40, 49; 24.3; 28.20. 85. Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbrief als Schriftausleger, pp. 172-77.



1.   Servant of Yhwh 31

the mt. The mt has ‘ears you have cut for me’, not ‘a body you have prepared for me’. One can argue that the lxx reading is to be taken totum pro parte, the ears representing the whole body, so that the Greek translation is really an interpretation of this passage, not an arbitrary change of it. Whatever the case may be, the author makes a pesher-type interpretation of Ps. 40.6-8; his point is that God prepared a body for the Messiah, which implies the Messiah’s pre-existence (see Heb. 1.1-3). In Heb. 10.8a, the author then says that God did not desire nor was pleased with sacrifices, offerings and burnt offerings; rather they were offered until the coming of the Davidic Messiah into the body prepared for him. It should be pointed out that there is warrant for seeing the one speaking in the psalm as someone other than David. This is because David did offer sacrifices to God, and one would not expect this if David really believed that God did not desire sacrifices.86 4. New Covenant and Forgiveness Having established that he is a High Priest according to the order of Mel­ chizedek, the author adds that Jesus has become the guarantor (e1gguoj) of a better covenant (7.22). Later in his letter it becomes clear that the better covenant is the Jeremian new covenant. In his interpretation, Christ’s suffering and death brings to realization the forgiveness included as part of the promise of the new covenant: ‘For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more’ (Jer. 31.34) (Heb. 8.6-13). The author expresses this by saying that Christ has become the mediator (mesi/thj) of the new covenant, the instrument by which the promise of forgiveness in the new covenant is actualized (9.15a; see 8.6b ‘mediator of a better covenant’). In the author’s view, the provisions for expiation under the first covenant were ineffective (see Heb. 7.18; 8.7, 13). But with the actualization of the new covenant, of which Christ is the mediator, those who committed sin under the first covenant have redemption from sin, by which is meant forgiveness. This implies that the author understands the effects of Christ’s death as being retroactive, so that those under the first covenant also receive the redemption made possible by Christ’s death (see Rom. 3.25; Acts 17.30). The second purpose for which Jesus is mediator of a new covenant is in order that ‘those who are called to an eternal inheritance’ may receive the 86. The lxx reading of ‘you did not seek’ (ou)k h!|thsaj) (lxx Ps. 39.7) differs from the citation in Heb. 10.6 ‘You have not taken pleasure’ (ou)k eu)do&khsaj) (see Ps. 51[lxx 50].16, 19) and better serves the author’s purpose, insofar it implies that the sacrifices have been ineffective. The author also omits the final verb of the clause quoted from lxx Ps. 39.9 e)boulh&qhn (‘I wished to do your will’), because, in so doing, he makes an explicit connection between the Messiah’s coming (‘I have come’) and his purpose in coming: ‘to do your will’. (The infinitive ‘to do’ now belongs to the main verb ‘I have come’ rather than ‘I wished’, as it is in the lxx.)

32

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

promise. The term ‘eternal inheritance’ is a synonym for eternal salvation (5.9); the fact that the term ‘inheritance’ is used may be an allusion to the promised land (‘rest’) that the generation of the exodus was to inherit and, according to the author, was an antitype of eternal salvation, the ‘rest’ that remains open to enter (Hebrews 3–4).87 These beneficiaries are also said to receive the promise, which means that the promise is that of eternal salvation.88 Thus, ‘eternal inheritance’ stands in apposition to ‘promise’. In Heb. 9.16-17, the author provides a reason that it was necessary that the mediator of the new covenant die. To understand the argument it is necessary to take into consideration that in English one must translate one Greek word—diaqh&kh—by two different terms (‘covenant’ and ‘last will’). A last will (diaqh&kh) only comes into effect with the death of the one who makes it; thus, the author argues that the new covenant (kainh_ diaqh/kh) could only come into effect with the death of Christ, its mediator. Thus, the meaning of the word diaqh/kh shifts from ‘covenant’ in the biblical sense of tyrb in Heb. 9.15, to ‘last will’ in Heb. 9.16-17, and then back to ‘covenant’ in Heb. 9.18. It is clear that the author presupposes that Christ’s death is the necessary condition for the actualization of the new covenant and then ‘proves’ this by arguing that all ‘covenants’ in the sense of ‘last wills’ presuppose death as a condition of their validity. The author’s argument, in other words, is intended more of a creative means of theological expression than an actual argument. In addition, in order to demonstrate the necessity of Christ’s death as the means by which he became the mediator of the new covenant, the author recalls the fact that the first covenant was inaugurated with blood (Heb. 9.18-20).89 To make this point, he refers to Exod. 24.1-8, an account of the ratification of the covenant by Moses—the mediator of the first covenant— between God and the Israelites. In this rite, the people declared their willingness to do all the words of the Lord and the ordinances (Exod. 24.3). Half of the blood of the calves Moses threw against the altar but he used the other half to sprinkle on the people, saying ‘This is the blood of the covenant’. (Rather than ‘behold…’ in lxx Exod. 24.8, the author uses ‘this is…’.) The point is that the new covenant is also ratified with blood, so that Jesus’ blood is the blood of the (new) covenant. Implicit in the author’s theologizing is the position that the blood of the animals are anti-typological of Jesus’ blood, i.e. death, as the means by which the new covenant is inaugurated. Thus to argue, as the author does in Heb. 9.16-17, that covenants 87. Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes, p. 183. 88. See Heb. 4.1; 6.17 for previous references to the receiving of the promise (of eternal salvation). 89. John Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews (SNTSMS, 75; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 126-34.



1.   Servant of Yhwh 33

require death is not arbitrary, since the shedding of the blood of animals was required for the institution of the first covenant. Finally, the author includes Jesus the mediator of the new covenant and the sprinkled blood as belonging to the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12.24). 5. Hebrews in the Interpretation of the Early Church The idea of Christ as priest, or High Priest, according to the order of Melchizedek, who offers himself as a definitive sacrifice shapes the theology of the early church, especially in the context of later Christological controversies. The details of the argumentation from Hebrews, however, tend not to be reproduced, but rather only the two general points that Christ both is a priest or High Priest and a sacrifice. Other scriptural texts are intertextually used to interpret and supplement such assertions in Hebrews. In the prayer of Polycarp, Christ is referred to as ‘the everlasting and heavenly High Priest Jesus Christ’, which is obviously is indebted to Hebrews (Mart. Pol. 14.3).90 Clement of Rome is influenced by Heb. 2.18; 3.1 in his interpretation of the salvation-historical significance of Christ: ‘This is the way, dearly beloved, wherein we found our salvation, even Jesus Christ the High priest of our offerings, the guardian and helper of our weakness’ (1 Clem. 36.1). In 2 Clement, under the influence of Heb. 2.10 ‘author of salvation’, the author writes that God ‘sent forth to us the savior and author of immortality’, referring to Christ (20).91 For the author, immortality is a synonym for salvation. Cyprian builds upon the interpretation of Jesus as High Priest in Hebrews, giving it a Eucharistic slant. Based on Ps. 110.4, he understands Melchizedek as typifying Christ. In particular, Melchizedek’s offering of bread and wine to Abraham typifies Christ’s sacrifice of himself, his body and blood, for all those who have the faith of Abraham. He explains, ‘For who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered that very same thing which Melchizedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his body and blood?’ (Ep. 62.4). Similarly, under the influence of Hebrews, Lactantius interprets Christ as a priest, who has created an eternal Temple in which to serve, the church (D.I. 4.14). He interprets Christ not only in light of Ps. 110.4, but also 1 Sam. 2.35 and Zech. 3.1-8. The idea of the church as the Temple in which Christ serves is obviously an expansion of what is found in Hebrews and indicates a lack of understanding of the argument in Hebrews, since heaven itself is the holy of holies for the author of Hebrews. Finally, in refutation of the Jewish view that Ps. 110.1 refers to Hezekiah, Tertullian insists that Ps. 110.4 precludes this interpretation since Hezekiah was 90. dia_ tou~ ai)wni/ou kai_ e0pourani&ou a)rxiere/wj 'Ihsou~ Xristou~ 91. to_n swth~ra kai_ a)rxhgo_n th~j a)fqari/aj

34

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

no priest. Guided by the argumentation in Hebrews, he claims that Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek and adds that he is the priest of the gentiles, as Melchizedek was. He writes, ‘To Christ, however, ‘the order of Melchizedek’ will be very suitable; for Christ is the proper and legitimate High Priest of God (Dei antistes)’ (Adv. Marc. 5.9). Athanasius cites several passages from Hebrews, which he considers to be written by Paul, and incorporates them along with texts from Paul’s letters into his explanation of the purpose of the incarnation of the Word (Ar. 1.59).92 Influenced by Hebrews, he says that, because the Law made nothing perfect, the ‘visitation’ of the Word was needed: ‘But that visitation has perfected the work of the Father’. He quotes Heb. 8.6; 9.23; and 7.19 and then, taking aim at Arian Christology, draws the general conclusion that the reason that what Christ does is better than its anti-typological counterparts is owing to the fact that he is not a created being. He writes, ‘Both in the verse before us, then, and throughout, does he ascribe the word “better” to the Lord, who is better and other than originated things. For better is the sacrifice through him, better the hope in him; and also the promises through him, not merely as great compared with small, but the one differing from the other in nature, because he who conducts this economy, is “better” than things originated.’ It could not be otherwise that the incarnate Word would be a better sacrifice, have a more excellent ministry, be a mediator of a better covenant established on better promises and introduce a better hope than what the Law provides, since the uncreated ex hypothesi is superior to the created. In the process of refuting the Arian view of the Word of God as a work, Athanasius intertextually joins Jn 1.1-3 to the idea of Jesus as the ‘apostle and High Priest of our profession’ (Heb. 3.1) (Ar. 2.7). Against the Arian interpretation of Heb. 3.1-2, ‘Jesus, who was faithful to him who made (poih/santi) him’ (Heb. 3.2), he describes the purpose of the incarnation as the Word becoming High Priest through his death for the benefit of human beings. He writes, ‘But when, after offering himself for us, he raised his body from the dead, and, as now, himself brings near and offers to the Father those who in faith approach him, redeeming all, and for all propitiating God’ (Ar. 2.7).93 He insists that Christ was made apostle and High Priest by means of his incarnation: ‘But as signifying his descent to mankind and High-priesthood which did “become”’ (Ar. 2.7). Christ was not ‘made’ in an unqualified sense, according to essence, so that his generation from the 92. See Robert C. Gregg and Dennis E. Groh, Early Arianism—A View of Salvation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981). 93. lutou&menoj pa&ntaj, kai\ u(pe\r pa&ntwn i9lasko&menoj ta_ pro_j to_n qeo&n / u(pe_r pa&ntwn lu&tra doqh~nai… e9auto_n prosene/gkh| tw~| patri\, kai\ tw~| i0diw~| ai3mati pa&ntaj h(ma~j a)po_ tw~n a(martiw~n kaqari&sh||



1.   Servant of Yhwh 35

Father was not a creation. In other words, the making of the Word as High Priest was his incarnation and an appointment to a salvation-historical role, in the same that Aaron the man puts on his high-priestly robe. What is of particular interest is Athanasius’s description of the nature of Christ as High Priest. The four functions identified as those of Christ the High Priest are: offering himself for us, bringing near and offering human beings to the Father, redeeming (lutrou/menoj) and propitiating God (i9lasko&menoj). For him, the category of High Priest includes redeeming all and propitiating God for all. Presumably, he believes that the term ‘to propitiate’ clarifies what it means for Christ to redeem: human beings are redeemed because God is propitiated. In addition, under the influence of Hebrews, Athanasius explains that the High Priest Aaron was a shadow of Christ as High Priest, who assumed the role at his incarnation. He finds his interpretation expressed in Heb. 2.14 ‘Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same’ etc. (Ar. 5.8). Finally, drawing upon the reflection on Jesus as High Priest in Hebrews, Athanasius asserts that, having been made incarnate, Jesus offered himself and made an effective and permanent sacrifice, unlike the Levitical sacrifices: ‘And as offering a faithful sacrifice (qusi/an)’ (Ar. 2.9). In dependence on Hebrews, Origen refers to Jesus as a great High Priest, who by the greatness of his power and understanding ‘has passed through the heavens, even Jesus the Son of God’ (Heb. 4.4)’ (Con. Cels. 6.20). The reference to Jesus’ understanding as the means by which he passed through the heavens, however, is an addition to the argumentation in Hebrews, and is more Gnostic than biblical in nature. Later he combines 1 Jn 2.2 ‘expiation for our sins’ with the idea of Christ as High Priest: ‘To the son we first present them, and beseech him, as the expiation for our sins, and our High Priest’ (8.13). In his Homily in Leviticus, Origen expounds upon Leviticus in light of Hebrews, which he believes was written by Paul, as well as other biblical texts (see Hom. in Lev. 1.3; 9.2, 9). He understands the Levitical sacrifices as typological of Christ’s sacrificial death. The two references in Lev 1.3, 5 to the place where the offering is to be made (‘at the doorway to the tent of meeting’) typologically suggests to Origen that Jesus makes a twofold offering, one on earth in Jerusalem and the other in heaven. Evidence of this twofold offering is found in Col. 1.20 ‘He made peace with the blood of his cross…whether things on earth and things in heaven’ and Heb. 10.20 ‘through the veil, that is his flesh’. He interprets the latter passage to mean that Jesus entered heaven where he made a type of spiritual sacrifice of himself. Having done so, as Heb. 7.25 states, Jesus now stands ever living before the Father making intercession for human beings. The idea of two veils, one belonging to the earthly tabernacle and the other to the heavenly suggests to him that there are two sacrifices. Origen’s view of a twofold sacrifice is overly-speculative, however, and exceeds what is

36

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

found in Hebrews. In the context of describing Christ as High Priest who goes through the heavens, Origen asserts that the purpose for which Christ came was to remove the sins of the world and by his death destroy ‘our sins’ (Hom. in Num. 10.2). By this he seems to mean forgiveness. Finally, he calls Christ a High Priest who by his blood makes propitiation to God for human beings and reconciles them to God (Hom. in Lev. 9.10).94 In his view, to make propitiation and to reconcile are coordinate terms, the latter being the result of the former. Cyril of Jerusalem is also influenced by the presentation in Hebrews of Christ as High Priest who offers himself as a sacrifice. He writes that Jesus functions as a mediating High Priest, which is dependent on Heb. 7.25 ‘He always lives to make intercession for them’. In addition, he states, ‘For the mystery has been fulfilled; the things that are written have been accomplished; sins are forgiven’, and then quotes from Heb. 9.11-13 followed by Heb. 10.19 (Cat. lect. 13.32).. Likewise, guided by the argumentation in Hebrews, Gregory of Nyssa interprets Christ as ‘the great High Priest, who offered up his own lamb, that is, his own body, for the sin of the world’ (Con. Eunom. 3.4.19).95 Gregory makes it more explicit that Christ’s death is that of a sacrifice. Under the influence of Heb. 10.1 ‘shadow of the good things to come’, Ambrose makes a threefold distinction between the shadow (umbra), the image (imago) and the truth (veritas) (De offic. I.48.248; see Ennar. in ps. 38.25).96 The sacrificial animals in the Law were shadows of Christ the man, who suffered in order to take away sins and for this reason is a priest. Ambrose explains, ‘But he is offered as man and as enduring suffering. And he offers himself as a priest to take away our sins’. The image of Christ as sacrifice and priest is the perfection of the shadow but is distinguished from the truth, which is Christ in heaven, ‘where with the Father he intercedes for us as our advocate’. The truth is the basis of the perfection of the shadow: ‘For all perfection rests in the truth’.97 It is not completely clear, however, how the truth as Christ the intercessor in heaven relates to the image of Christ as sacrifice and priest on earth. Paraphrasing the argument in Hebrews, Ambrose explains that Christ as a priest must have a sacrifice to offer. Because God rejected the blood of bulls and goats, Christ 94. Qui sanguine suo Deum tibi propitium fecit, et reconciliavit te Patri. 95. o( a)rxireu_j, o( me/gaj, o( to_n i1dion a)mno_n, tou~t’ e0sti’ to_ i1dion sw~ma, u(pe_r th~j kosmikh~j a(marti/aj i9erourgh/saj. 96. See also Ambrose, De fide 2 Introd; 4.10; 4.2.18; 5.8.109; De myst. 8.45-46; De virgin. bk II. chap. 2 18; 10 62; Ep. 63. 47, 48, 49. 97. See also Clement of Alexandria, Protr. 12; Strom. 2.5, 11; Mart. Pol. 14.3; Origen Con. Cels. 3.34; 5.4; 6.20; 7.46; 8.13, 34; Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. lect. 2 10; Eusebius, H.E. 1.3,16-17; Epiphanius, Haeres. 55; Augustine, Io. ev. tr. 24.5, 7; Leo, Serm. 3.



1.   Servant of Yhwh 37

offered himself as an eternal sacrifice in heaven (De fide 3.11.86-88). He writes, ‘Therefore, because God had repudiated the blood of bulls and of rams, it was necessary for this priest, as you have read, to enter into the Holy of Holies, penetrating the heights of heaven, by means of his own blood, so that he might become an eternal oblation for our sins’ (3.11.87). Ambrose also intertextually connects Christ as both priest and sacrificial victim with the Isaian servant described as a lamb led to the slaughter (Isa. 53.7). Finally, quoting Heb. 7.3 ‘without father, without mother’ etc., he identifies Christ as the High Priest Melchizedek, who appears salvationhistorically after the Aaronic High Priests (Ep. 63.49). Chrysostom’s soteriology is also informed by Hebrews. He explains that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice once (In ep. ad Heb. Hom. 17.2; 17.3). He also quotes Heb. 9.28 ‘He was offered once to take away the sins of many’, and explains that the text says ‘many’ and not ‘all’ because not all human beings have believed. According to him, because human beings were in state in which no other sacrifice would suffice to cleanse them from sin, Christ becomes a man and a High Priest in order to make a sacrifice (qusi/a) of himself to cleanse human beings from sin (In ep. ad Heb. Hom. 5.1). The idea of Christ as both priest and sacrifice from Hebrews is found in Augustine’s works. Inspired by its interpretation in Hebrews, he explains that Ps. 110.4 prophesies a new order of priest, the order of Melchizedek; this is anticipated by that of the order of Aaron, which is a shadow of it (Civ. Dei 16.22). He interprets the argument in Hebrews about the relation between Christ and Melchizedek to mean that Melchizedek is a type of Christ: ‘Now, that Melchizedek was a type of Christ, the Holy Spirit declares in the Psalms, where the Father addressing the Son says, “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”’ (Doct. chr. 4.21.45). He adds in another work, ‘Of this flesh and blood Melchizedek also, when he blessed Abram himself, gave the testimony that is very well known to Christian believers, so that long afterwards it was said to Christ in the Psalms: “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek”’ (Gr. et pecc. or. 2.33). The influence of Hebrews on Augustine is also evident in his description of Jesus as a righteous and holy priest who offers his own flesh, that born of a virgin, as a sacrifice to God for human beings: ‘in one both the offerer and the offering’ (De Trin. 4.14). He asserts that the sacrifices of Aaron have been removed and replaced by the sacrifice after the order of Melchizedek, which is Christ’s own sacrificial death (En. ps. 33 s. I.5-6). Similarly, he writes, ‘Thus he is both the priest who offers and the sacrifice offered’ (Civ. Dei 10.20). What Augustine writes about Christ as both sacrifice and the one who sacrifices is further elaborated in City of God. Under the influence of the identification of Christ as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek in Hebrews, he states that Christ is both the priest and the offering (oblatio) at once. He refers to Christ as the true sacrifice of which

38

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

all other sacrifices are signs and says that the Eucharist is a sign of this true sacrifice (Civ. Dei 10.20).98 Some Christian theologians organize the various aspects of Christ’s soteriological function according to the three offices of prophet, king and priest, all of which are sometimes included as Christ’s function as mediator (triplex munus Christi). Correspondingly, his anointing is said to be threefold also, so that the title ‘anointed one’ no longer refers exclusively to being a king from the line of David.99 The basis for Christ’s office as priest is principally the portrayal of him as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110.4) in Hebrews 7–10. The triplex munus Christi is taken up by Protestant theologians, and becomes commonplace in Reformed thought.100 Calvin explains, ‘The priestly office belongs to Christ alone because by the sacrifice of his death he blotted out our own guilt and made satisfaction for our sins (Heb. 9.22)’.101 In his view, to make satisfaction for sins summarizes Christ’s priestly function as articulated by the messianic interpretation of Ps. 110.4 in Hebrews.102 6. Christ as Second Human Being In Rom. 5.12-19 Paul contrasts the consequences for the human race of the two representative human beings (a!nqrwpoi), Adam and Christ. His goal is explain the soteriological benefit of Christ’s suffering and death by setting 98. See De doct. chr. 4.21.45; En. ps. 33. s.I 5.6. 99. Eusebius, H.E. 1.3.7-8; Augustine, Io. ev. tr. 24.5, 7. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, ‘The word “Christ” comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah, which means “anointed”. It became the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that “Christ” signifies. In effect, in Israel those consecrated to God for a mission that he gave were anointed in his name. This was the case for kings, for priests and, in rare instances, for prophets. This had to be the case all the more so for the Messiah whom God would send to inaugurate his kingdom definitively. It was necessary that the Messiah be anointed by the Spirit of the Lord at once as king and priest, and also as prophet. Jesus fulfilled the messianic hope of Israel in his threefold office of priest, prophet and king’ (436). See also Calvin, Instit. 2.15; Heidelberg Catechism and Westminster Shorter Catechism. 100. See Francis Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae II, loc. decimus quartus, 7-16 for as an extensive treatment of Christ as priest drawing heavily on Hebrews. 101. Instit. 2.15. Before Calvin, M. Bucer explained Christ’s anointing as king (rex), teacher (doctor), and priest (sacerdos) (9) as well as king of kings (rex regum), highest priest (summus sacerdos), and chief of prophets (prophetarum caput) (607) (In sacra quatuor evangelia, Enarrationes [Basel, 1536]). Likewise, A. Osiander makes use of the triplex munus Christi doctrine (Schirmschrift zum Ausburger Reichstag [1530]). 102. Satisfecit pro peccatis. Other phrases that Calvin uses in this section to express Christ’s priestly office include: reconciling us to God, being an expiation, obtaining God’s favor and appeasing his wrath and washing away our sins.



1.   Servant of Yhwh 39

it in opposition to the negative consequence that Adam’s sin has had on his posterity.103 Rom. 5.12 ‘Just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned’ represents the first half of the contrast (protasis), which is introduced by the conjunction ‘just as’ (w#sper). The second half of the contrast (apodosis) introduced by ‘so also’ (ou#twj kai_), however, does not come until 5.18b-19.104 Romans 5.13-17 is a digression or parenthesis, in which Paul explains in more detail the origin of sin and death with Adam and anticipates the point that he makes in the apodosis in 5.18b-19. His main argument thus is found in 5.12, 18-19. In Rom. 5.12, he states that it is through one human being that sin entered the world and with sin came death (see the synonymous clause in 5.17: ‘if through the transgression of the one death reigned because of the one’). From what he writes in 5.13, it is clear that Adam’s decision to sin was representative, with the result that he brought the consequence of his sin—death—to all of his progeny. All human beings participate in Adam’s sin and inherit death as the penalty of this first transgression.105 When he affirms that ‘sin is not reckoned in the absence of Law’ and also that ‘sin was in the world (already) until the coming of the Law’ (5.13), he means that all human beings are sinners by virtue of their participation in Adam’s sin, not by violating the Law.106 In other words, as a representative of the human race, Adam’s choice to sin belongs to all his descendants and has judicial consequences for them. Otherwise Paul would have a hard time explaining how all sin was in the world between the time of Adam and Moses when there could be no sin since there was no Law. Sin was in the world, not because of the personal sins of Adam’s 103. See Robin Scroggs, The Last Adam. A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), pp. 76-82; Peter von der Osten-Sacken, Römer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer Soteriologie (FRLANT, 112; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 160-75; Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), pp. 86-93; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 314-46. 104. Because the apodosis is so far removed from the protasis, Paul chooses to reiterate the latter in Rom. 5.18a ‘So therefore through the trespass of one resulted in the condemnation of all human beings…’. 105. Osten Sacken, Römer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer Soteriologie, pp. 160-75. 106. F.F. Bruce, Romans (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), pp. 118-26; Herman N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of his Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 95-100; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965), I, pp. 178-210; contrary to C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Mark (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), pp. 269-95; James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC, 38A; Dallas: Word, 1988), pp. 269-300. See also Timo Eskola, Theodicy and Predestina­tion in Pauline Soteriology (WUNT, 2/100; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998), chap. 3. Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), pp. 142-91.

40

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

progeny, but because of Adam’s representative sin. Moreover, the certainty of death could not be explained unless all were sinners because of Adam’s representative choice.107 Before the coming of the Mosaic Law, according to Paul, only Adam sinned in the strict sense of the word, because only he disobeyed a commandment. Paul acknowledges the difference between the sin of Adam and that of his progeny by his statement, ‘Death reigned from Adam to Moses even over those who did not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam’ (5.14).108 Adam’s progeny sinned, not like Adam by violating a commandment, but by virtue of their corporate identification with him. This is confirmed by Paul’s concluding statement in 5.12: ‘Because all sinned’.109 His point is that the reason that death extends to all human beings is that all participated in Adam’s sin or ‘all sinned (i.e., with Adam)’.110 The result is that both guilt and death originated with Adam and were passed on to his descendants because of their solidarity with him.111 Further support for the interpretation of Adam as representative of the human race is Paul’s statement in 5.19, which is parallel to the protasis in 5.12 (and 5.18a): ‘For 107. This understanding of Adam’s sin explains why Paul refers to all human beings without exception as ‘by nature children of wrath’ (te/kna fu&sei o)rgh~j): it is the constitutional and not accidental condition of human beings to be at enmity with God and an object of divine wrath first and foremost because of because of Adam’s representative sin (Eph. 2.3). 108. See Hodge, Romans, p. 160 109. There has been debate about how to interpret the phrase e0f’ w{|; likely, w{| is neuter and the phrase e0f’ w{| should be taken as conjunction meaning ‘because’ or ‘for this reason that’. BDF 235(2); see 2 Cor. 5.4; Phil. 3.12 for other occurrences of the phrase as a conjunction. On this passage, see C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC n.s.; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 1979), I, pp. 274-81; Brice L. Martin, Christ and the Law in Paul (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989), pp. 72-74. See 2 Cor. 5.4; Phil. 3.12; 4 for other occurrences of the phrase as a conjunction. 110. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 15.20-22, Paul writes, ‘Death came through a man’ and ‘In Adam all die’. The prepositions ‘through’ (dia&) and ‘in’ (e0n) both have a causal sense: through the agency of the first man death came into the world, and because of Adam all die. Elaborating on this in 1 Cor. 15.25-28, Paul says that, although through his death and resurrection Christ has begun to reign, has begun putting all of his enemies under his feet, the subjugation of the last enemy, death, remains in the future: ‘For he must reign until he puts all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death’. Death will only be defeated at the final resurrection of the dead, when the dead will be raised incorruptible at the last trumpet (1 Cor. 15.50-57). Not until this time will ‘death will be swallowed up in victory’ (15.54). 111. For partial parallels to this view, see Adam and Eve 44; Apoc. Mos. 14, 32; 4 Ezra 3.7, 21-22; 4.30; 7.116-18; 2 Bar. 17.2-3; 23.4; 48.42-43; 54.15, 19; 56.5-6. The author of 2 Baruch, however, rejects the idea that a sinner is counted as such because of Adam’s sin: ‘But each of us has become our own Adam’ [54.19; see also 54.15]. As Ridderbos puts it, ‘It was not their personal sin, but Adam’s sin and their share in it, that was the cause of their death’ (Paul. An Outline of His Theology, p. 96).



1.   Servant of Yhwh 41

just as through the disobedience of the one man many became sinners’. The many became sinners, not because of their own sins, but because of their corporate identification with Adam.112 The first human being, Adam, is called a ‘type’ (tu/poj) of the one who is to come, who is Christ (5.14). The point of his typological comparison between Adam and Christ is their respective effects on the human race: what each does has judicial consequences for human beings.113 For this reason, one could call Adam a negative type of Christ because the universal effect produced by Christ is the opposite of that of Adam. Paul makes this clear by his use of the conjunction ‘but’ (a0lla&) in Rom. 5.15, which serves to prepare for a contrast between the two ‘human beings’ (a!nqrwpoi): ‘But the gift (xa&risma) is not like the trespass (para&ptwma)’.114 Based on the typology between Adam and Christ, Paul presents an argument from minor to major: ‘For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by [that] grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many’ (5.15). Christ’s ‘one act of righteousness’ (e4n dikai&wma) (5.18) or ‘obedience’ (u(pakoh&) (5.19) signifies his willing suffering and death for others. Implicitly, this is considered more effective than Adam’s ‘offense’ (para&basij) (5.14), ‘transgression’ (para&ptwma) (5.15, 16, 18) or ‘disobedience’ (parakoh/) (5.19). Because it is more effective, it nullifies the previous judicial effect of Adam’s transgression.115 What Paul wants to stress is that Christ’s suffering and death is the manifestation of the grace of God and indeed is the means by which the gift (h9 dwrea&) originating in that grace is now available to 112. Hodge explains that all human beings ‘sinned putatively’ (Romans, p. 151) and that Adam’s sin was ‘legally and effectively’ the sin of his descendants. See Egon Brandenburger, Adam und Christus: Exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Römer 5, 12-21 (1Kor 15) (WMANT, 7; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962), pp. 15-67 for a consideration of the idea of original sin in early Judaism. Brandenburger holds that Paul’s teaching about ‘original sin’ stems from gnostic Christian Adam-anthropos speculation and not second-Temple Judaism, in which the idea of sin as destiny is absent. Gnostic Christians introduces the idea of the two Adams into their interpretation of the work of Christ; Paul is then forced to adopt this idea but tone down the mythological and dualistic elements. It is debatable that Paul takes over Adamanthropos speculation and incorporated this as an important part of his soteriology. 113. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of his Theology, pp. 53-64; 95-100; Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology, chap. 3. 114. The phrases ‘the gift’ (xa&risma) and ‘the grace of God’ (h9 xa&rij tou~ qeou~) in Rom. 5.15 are coordinate in meaning. The term para&ptwma (transgression) is antithetically parallel to xa&risma and xa&rij in Rom. 5.15 (see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 334-37). 115. The phrase ‘the many’ (see 5.19) is synonymous with ‘all human beings’ (5.12, 18). The terms ‘the many’/‘all human beings’ stand in contrast to ‘the one human being’ (5.12, 19) or just ‘the one’ (5.18, 19).

42

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

human beings. The prepositional phrase ‘by [that] grace of the one human being, Jesus Christ’ modifies the phrase ‘the gift’. In fact, it seems that Paul intends that the prepositional phrase e0n xa&riti (‘by [that] grace’) to refer back to the phrase ‘the grace of God’ (xa&rij tou~ qeou~), so that the gift is understood as originating in and being a manifestation of the grace of God. On this interpretation, the use of the preposition ‘in’ (e0n) is instrumental: ‘by means of the one man, Jesus Christ’.116 In addition, the phrase ‘of the one man, Jesus Christ’ stands in apposition to ‘by grace’, and serves to clarify that the grace in which the gift originates has come through the man Jesus Christ. The fact that Paul uses the cognate noun ‘abundance’ (perissei&a) in Rom. 5.17 in reference to ‘grace’ and ‘gift’ (‘the abundance of the grace and the gift of righteousness’) clarifies that the gift of the grace [of God] that ‘abounds’ (5.15) consists of ‘righteousness’ (dikaiosu&nh). By righteousness, Paul means the righteousness that God imputes to human beings. Earlier in Rom. 5.16 he refers to ‘the gift for the purpose of righteousness’ (to\ xa/risma…ei0j dikai/wma). Paul further specifies the nature of ‘the gift’ (h9 dwrea&) that he identifies in Rom. 5.17 as ‘righteousness’. He asserts that it issues in ‘the righteousness of life’ (h9 dikai&wsij zwh~j) in Rom. 5.18 (see 4.25 ‘was raised for our righteousness’). The phrase is either a genitive of result or purpose, so that the gift of righteousness has (eternal) life for its result or purpose. Paul uses the word dikai/wsij rather than the more common dikaiosu&nh; its only other occurrence in his letters is in Rom. 4.25, where it functions as a synonym for dikaiosu&nh in what may be a pre-Pauline formula. It seems that in Rom. 5.18 dikai&wsij also is a synonym for dikaiosu&nh, by which he means a righteousness imputed to human beings. In Rom. 5.19 he makes the same point about Christ’s one representative act: ‘For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were established as sinners, even so through the obedience of the one the many will be established as righteous (di/kaioi katastaqh/sontai)’. As indicated, by Christ’s obedience, Paul means Christ’s willing suffering and death for others. His point is that through Christ’s obedience, human beings (‘the many’) become righteous by means of the imputation of righteousness.117 In this way, ‘the many will be established as righteous’ in an eschatological sense, at the time of final judgment. Another designation for the gift is ‘righteousness unto life’ (dikaiosu&nh ei0j zwh/n) (5.21). By this phrase Paul means an imputed righteousness that has for its purpose or result eternal life. Whereas the judicial consequence of the first representative of the human race is transgression 116. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.285. 117. As Hodge points out, the meaning of di/kaioi katastaqh/sontai is not to make righteous in the sense of effecting or causing a person to be righteous in an ethical sense (Romans, pp. 173-74).



1.   Servant of Yhwh 43

and death, the judicial consequence of the second representative is righteousness and life.118 Early Christian theologians make use of Paul’s concept of Christ as the second Adam or human being, but most do not have a complete of understanding of it. They tend not to recognize that the consequences for humanity of Adam and Christ’s representative acts are judicial in nature: acts that determine the status of a human being before God as either righteous or unrighteous. Reflecting upon Rom. 5.12-19, Tertullian explains how Adam was deceived by Satan and by his transgression human beings were given over to death; he adds that Adam’s condemnation was transmitted to the whole human race (De test. 3.2).119 He does not, however, say anything about how righteousness comes through Christ, the other human being (see Adv. Marc. 5.9.5). Irenaeus cleverly draws a parallel between the two trees, Adam’s tree and Christ’s tree, by which is meant cross, asserting that the effects of the first tree were undone by the other: ‘And the trespass which came by the tree was undone by the tree of obedience’ (Demonstr. 34; see Adv. haer. 5.17.3). Citing Isa. 50.6 ‘I gave my back to scourging, and my cheeks to smiting’ as prophetically applying to Christ, he explains further, ‘So then by the obedience with which he obeyed even unto death, hanging on the tree, he put away the old disobedience which was brought about in the tree’. In addition, Irenaeus provides an interpretive summary of Rom. 5.12-21: ‘For as by one man’s disobedience sin entered, and death obtained through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead’ (Adv. haer. 3.21.10).120 He does not explain, however, in which sense righteousness is introduced by the one man’s obedience. Extrapolating from what Paul writes, Irenaeus draws a typological parallel not simply between 118. In his lengthy treatment of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15, Paul draws a parallel between Adam and Christ; he interprets Jesus as the second Adam or human being, the second head of the human race. Through Christ comes the resurrection from the dead, whereas through Adam all died (15.21-22). By contrast, through the second Adam or human being life (i.e., eternal life) was brought to all; this comes as a gift by the grace of God. Paul is emphatic, however, that resurrection comes first to Christ (the first fruits) and then to believers who have died: ‘But each in his own order: the first fruits and then at his coming those who belong to Christ’ (15.23). 119. ‘Through whom man was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. On account of his transgression man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation (suae etiam damnationis traducem fecit)’. 120. Quia quemadmodum per inobedientiam unius hominis introitum peccatum habuit, et per peccatum mors obtinuit; sic et per obedientiam unius hominis iustitia introducta vitam fructificet his, qui olim mortui erant, hominibus.

44

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Adam and Christ but also Eve and Mary: ‘And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith’ (Adv. haer. 3.22.4; see 3.23.2). But this typology between the two women actually undermines Paul’s intended meaning, since he identifies Adam’s disobedience as the one source of sin and death, which the other human being nullifies by his obedience. In Paul’s view, there are only two representative heads of the human race, Adam and Christ. Finally, Irenaeus includes a gloss on Romans 5, intertextually interpreting it in light of Phil. 2.8 ‘He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross’. Again, using the rhetorical device of the two trees, he asserts that the disobedience that Adam brought into being because of a tree Christ rectifies by means of a tree, by which is meant his obedience unto death on the cross. He interprets what Christ brings about by his obedience as being reconciled, which seems to be equated with being made unconditionally obedient. He writes, ‘In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death’ (Adv. haer. 5.16.3) 121 If this is his meaning, then he interprets the righteousness that Christ introduced as inherent and infused, and not imputed. In the context of refuting the Arian view that the Word could not become incarnate, Athanasius explains that sin and its consequence, death, enter the world on account of the transgression of the first human being, Adam, in agreement with what Paul writes in Rom. 5.12-19. This result is then reversed by the incarnation of the Word to become the second human being, whose death nullifies the effects of the transgression of the first human being, which includes the negation of the power of the serpent, by which is meant the devil (Genesis 3; Heb. 2.14-15).122 In particular, influenced by 1 Cor. 15.22, he asserts that the sacrificial death of Christ makes possible the resurrection of the dead, by removing the curse resulting from sin (Gal 3) and putting an end to the law of death (Rom. 8.2) (see Ar. 1.51, 59; 2.59-60, 65; 3.33; Incarn. 4.3, 10). What Athanasius is not clear on, however, is how Christ reverses the effects of the transgression of the Adam. Drawing upon passages such as Heb. 2.15 ‘And might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives’ and 1 Cor. 15.21 ‘For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead’, Athanasius in another work asserts that the ultimate purpose of the incarnation is for Christ to annul death by his own death, which explains why he allowed himself to be crucified. At the salvation-historical time appointed by God, the son of God became a son of man, or a human being, which, contrary to the Arian 121. e0n de\ tw~| deute/rw| 'Ada_m a)pokathlla&ghmen, u(ph&kooi me/xri qana&tou geno&menoi. 122. It is significant that in T. Levi 18.10-12, the eschatological priest that the Lord will raise up is said to be destined to bind ‘Beliar’ (i.e. Satan).



1.   Servant of Yhwh 45

interpretation, is the true meaning of Prov. 8.22 ‘The Lord created me… for his works’ (Decr. 3 [14]). Since he as the incarnate Word was mortal, Christ died, but, since he was also incorruptible, he nullified death by means of the resurrection, which now becomes a possibility for all human beings. As a man he undoes what the first man has done (1 Cor. 15.21). Athanasius writes, ‘By man death has gained its power over men; by the Word made man death has been destroyed and life raised up anew’ (Incarn. 10.5). He adds that in so doing Christ also brings to nothing the one who has the power over death (Heb. 2.14) (10.4). The connection between dying for others and thereby annulling death is that death, conceived as a quasi-personified entity, receives the death of the incarnate Word in exchange for the deaths of all other human beings. What is lacking in Athanasius’s account, however, is an explanation of how what Paul calls ‘the gift of righteousness’ (5.17) relates to the whole process of nullifying the effects of the first man’s transgression, identified as salvation (Incarn. 4.3), or how it relates to ‘the righteousness of life’ (5.18). Similarly, he omits any clear explanation of how by the obedience of the one man (Christ) many will be established as righteous (5.19). If anything, he seems to have the view that the overthrow of the serpent results in a new power becoming available to human beings by which they can become obedient. He writes, ‘When the Lord had become man and had overthrown the serpent, that so great strength of his is to extend through all men… By taking this alterable flesh, “might condemn sin in it” (Rom. 8.3), and might secure its freedom, and its ability henceforth “to fulfil the righteousness of the law” (Rom. 8.4) in itself, so as to be able to say, “But we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in us” (Rom. 8.9)’ (Ar. 1.51). The implication may be that the gift of righteousness is what is later called infused righteousness. In his interpretation of Rom. 5.12-19, Origen explains that righteousness is a gift originating in God’s grace and he identifies it as a condition of eternal life. As Paul intends, he understands Christ typologically as the second human being who brings righteousness and life to the many, unlike the first human being who brought sin and death. For Origen, however, righteousness denotes infused righteousness, not imputed. This gift is bestowed at baptism and when accompanied by instruction leads to being practically righteous. (He does concede, however, that the righteous can still sin, although they are not to be classified as habitual sinners.) Origen even suggests that, by using the term ‘many’ and not ‘all’ in Rom. 5.12, Paul intends to warn those who presume upon God’s grace: ‘Lest they become more lazy in obedience being certain of a guarantee of life, which was to be given to all men through Christ’s grace’ (Comm. Rom. 5.2).123 123. Et segniores fierent erga observantiam, certi de Securitate vitae quae in omnes homines per Christi gratiam traderetur.

46

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

With Rom. 5.17-18 in mind, Cyril of Jerusalem affirms that, because Christ is unique, Christ’s death is uniquely effective in bringing life to the world, nullifying the effects of Adam’s sin. He writes, ‘Moreover one man’s sin, even Adam’s, had power to bring death to the world; but if by the trespass of the one death reigned over the world, how shall not life much rather reign by the righteousness of the one’ (Cat. lect. 13.2).124 He does not, however, provide a detailed exegesis of the passage. In addition, alluding to 1 Cor. 15.46, he argues that whereas the human being formed from the earth brought universal death, how much more will the (incarnate) one who formed him from the earth bring eternal life. For rhetorical purposes, Cyril also makes use of the two-trees analogy: ‘And if because of the tree of food they were then cast out of paradise, shall not believers now more easily enter into paradise because of the tree of Jesus?’ (13.2).125 Again what is lacking is exegetical exactness. Chrysostom understands that Adam’s sin was representative and that he is a type of Christ. Whereas Adam is the cause of death, Christ makes possible righteousness by means of the cross. He writes, ‘How a type? It will be said. Why in that, as the former became to those who were sprung from him, although they had not eaten of the tree, the cause of that death which by his eating was introduced; thus also did Christ become to those sprung from him, even though they had not done righteousness, the provider of that righteousness (ge/gone pro&cenoj dikaiosu&nhj) which through his cross he graciously bestowed on us all’ (In ep. ad Rom Hom. 10 on Rom. 5.12 [14]). What is not completely clear, however, is in which sense Christ’s representative act provides righteousness, resulting in life. Chrysostom makes no explicit reference to the imputation of righteousness. In fact, in his view the superabundant nature of the grace results in not simply the remission of the punishment for sin but other soteriological results, including renovation.126 124. kai/toige i1sxusen e9noj a)ndro_j tou 'Ada_m h( a(marti/a qa&naton e0ne/gkai tw~| ko&smw|. ei0 de\ tw~| paraptw&mati tou~ e9no_j qa&natoj e0basi/leusen ei0j to_n ko&smon, pw~j ou)xi\ ma~llon th~| dikaiosu&nh| tou~ e9no_j h( zwh_ basileu&sei. 125. to_ zu&lon 0Ihsou~. 126. Chrysostom writes, ‘And for this cause, he does not here say “grace”, but “superabundance of grace”. For it was not as much as we must have to do away the sin only, that we received of his grace, but even far more. For we were at once freed from punishment, and put off all iniquity, and were also born again from above (Jn 3.3) and rose again with the old man buried, and were redeemed, justified, led up to adoption, sanctified, made brothers of the only-begotten, and joint heirs and of one body with him, and counted for his flesh, and even as a body with the head, so were we united unto him. All these things then Paul calls a “superabundance” of grace, showing that what we received was not a medicine only to countervail the wound, but even health, and comeliness, and honor, and glory and dignities far transcending our natural state. And of these each in itself was enough to do away with death, but when all manifestly run together in one,



1.   Servant of Yhwh 47

Against the Pelagians, who understand the sins of Adam’s posterity as resulting from imitation of the sin of the first man, Augustine holds that all human beings share in Adam’s guilt irrespective of whether they have sinned personally, as in the case of infants, and also that they inherit a corrupt nature from Adam by means of natural propagation.127 He frequently cites Rom. 5.12 ‘just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned’ as a proof text for his position. In particular, he interprets the relative clause ‘in quo omnes peccaverunt’, the Latin translation of e0f’ w{| pa&ntej h3marton, in a metaphorically-spatial sense to mean that all human beings were somehow ‘in’ Adam. He writes, ‘For we all were in that one man, since we all were that one man, who fell into sin by the woman who was made from him before the sin’ (Civ. Dei 13.14). All human beings are seminal participants in Adam’s original sin. This explains the universality of death, including infants who do not commit personal sins. Of course, all human beings add guilt acquired from their own sins to the guilt from original sin, and do so necessarily because of the corruption of their nature inherited from the first man through concupiscence. By means of the sacrament of baptism Christ remedies the human problem, providing by grace both remission of the guilt from original sin and personal sins as well as infused righteousness. He writes, ‘The first man brought sin into the world, whereas this one took away not only that one sin but also all the others that he fund added to it’ (Enchir. 50). For Augustine, the gift of righteousness consists of infused righteousness, which is a function of regeneration, and not imputed righteousness. In his commentary on Romans, the commentator known as Ambrosiaster identifies Adam as the source of sin insofar as human beings imitate him, which is a Pelagian view. He does not believe that Adam sinned as a representative and that his guilt was judicially imputed to his descendants but more ambiguously that Adam makes sin possible for all human beings because they are ‘from him’ and ‘born under sin’.128 Human beings die the second death because of their own sins, not that of Adam, even though those sins are causally connected to Adam in some way.129 Ambrosiaster does nevertheless correctly understand the gift that Christ makes possible as the

there is not the least vestige of it left, nor can a shadow of it be seen, so entirely is it done away’ In ep. ad Rom. Hom. 10 (on Rom. 5.17). 127. See Augustine Civ. Dei 12.6,7, 9; 13.14; 21.12; C. ep. pel.; nat. et gr.; Pecc. mer.; Enchir. 81; De nup. et conc.; Corrept. 128. Manifestum itaque est in Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massa; ipsa enim per peccatum corruptus quos genuit, omnes nati sunt sub peccato. Ex eo igitur cuncti peccatores, quia ex eo ipso sumus omnes. 129. Quam non peccato Adae patimur, sed ejus occasione propriis peccatis acquiritur.

48

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

forgiveness of sins (5.12).130 In addition, he interprets the justification that the free gift brought likewise as forgiveness of sins.131 Hilary has the clearest understanding of Paul’s intended meaning in Rom. 5.12-19. Commenting on the healing of the paralytic in Mt. 9.2-8, he interprets Jesus’ forgiveness of the sins of the paralytic man as the forgiveness of Adam’s transgression that belongs to all human beings (Comm. Matt. 8.58). In so doing, he correctly understands Paul’s point in Rom. 5.12-19 as being that Christ’s one act of obedience brings forgiveness of Adam’s representative sin, although he does not make reference to the imputation of righteousness. He writes about Christ, ‘Through whom the sins of the soul are forgiven and by whose pardon there is forgiveness for the first transgression’ (8.5).132 Drawing a parallel to Jn 9.3 (‘It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents’), he claims that Jesus does not forgive the blind man of his own sins but of the first sin of Adam. Allegorizing the narrative, Hilary asserts that the man picking up his mat and carrying it home indicates that the way to paradise is recovered for human beings, from which Adam separated himself and his descendants by his sin (8.7). He further explains that the scribes present were troubled by Jesus’ pronouncement of the man’s forgiveness because they did not realize that the Word of God dwelt in Jesus and gave him the right to heal and forgive. Forgiveness is not obtainable through the Law, but faith alone justifies (8.6). Finally, Hilary writes that it is a great source of fear not to be forgiven of one’s sins by Christ, because what awaits such a person is dissolution in death and not to return to one’s heavenly home and receive a resurrected body (8.8). The interpretation of Rom. 5.12-19 later becomes a point of contention between Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians. The former appeal to Rom. 5.12-19 in support of Tridentine theology that, by his prevarication, Adam brought death and sin into the whole human race. Moreover, against the Protestant view, it is argued that the typology between Adam and Christ in the passage leads to the conclusion that being established as unrighteous because of Adam can only mean inherent unrighteousness, not imputed, because being established as righteous through the obedience of the one man, Christ, can only refer to inherent righteousness, not imputed (Rom. 5.19). This view is the traditional, widely-accepted Augustinian interpretation of Rom. 5.12-19. Bellarmine writes, ‘Thus from the contrast of Adam to Christ, the Apostle writes, “Thus we are established righteous through the obedience of Christ”, by which manner we are established unrighteous through the disobedience of Adam; for it corresponds through the disobedience of Adam we are established as unrighteous, that 130. Omnibus dans indulgentiam. 131. Dando illis remissionem peccatorum. 132. Huic remittuntur animae peccata, et indulgentia primae transgressionis ex venia est.



1.   Servant of Yhwh 49

the unrighteousness is truly in us, and the thing itself is inherent, the unrighteousness of Adam is not imputed to us’ (De justificatione, lib. 2, cap. 3; see lib. 2, cap. 7).133 Bellarmine’s argument depends upon his prior conclusion that justification means infused righteousness. Apart from its circularity, his argument founders, however, on the fact that Rom. 5.12-19 requires that the sin and death resulting from ‘the transgression of the one’ (5.17) be judicially imputed to his descendants.134 This is clear from what Paul writes in 5.13-14: since sin is not imputed where there is no law, if Adam’s descendants are subject to death, the judicial penalty of sin, without ever violating the Law, it must be because of Adam’s representative sin. This is the sense in which ‘all sinned’ (5.12b).135 So based on the typology between the two human beings, ‘the gift of righteousness’ (Rom. 5.17) made possible because of the second human being’s ‘one act of righteousness’ (5.19) is imputed righteousness resulting in life.136 Of course, Paul believes that Adam’s descendants contribute the guilt of their own sins to that imputed from Adam’s representative transgression, but this is not his point in Rom. 5.12-19. As Hodge expresses it, ‘Neither the corruption of nature, nor the actual sins of men, and their liability on account of them, is either questioned or denied, but the simple statement is, that on account of the sin of Adam, all men are treated as sinners’.137 Although it is interpretive of it, the Reformed doctrine of the federal headship of Christ is a legitimate extension and clarification of scripture, in particular of the relationship between Adam and Christ described in Rom. 5.12-19 and 1 Cor. 15.21-22. Both human beings function as federal heads, or representatives, of the human race, so that the respective choice of each has a judicial consequence for all human beings.138 The Covenant or Federal interpretation is better than that of Augustine, according to which all human beings somehow seminally participate in Adam’s primal sin. As indicated, the Augustinian view is based on a mistranslation of e0f’ w{| pa&ntej h3marton. Besides it obscures the parallelism between the imputed sin because of Adam and the imputed righteousness because of Christ. 133. Tum ex antithesi Adami ad Christum, scribit enim Apostolus, sic nos constitui iustos per obedientiam Christi, quo modo constituti sumus iniusti per inobedientiam Adami: constat autem per inobedientiam Adami nos iniustos esse constitutos, inustitia in nobis vere, ac re ipsa inhaerente, non inustitia Adami nobis imputata. 134. See William Ames, Bellarminus enervates, lib. 7 De Iustificatione. cap. 1 686-709. 135. Contrary to Calvin, who interprets Paul to mean that Adam’s sin is infused in the sense of a corrupt nature or the predisposition to sin (Rom. 5.12-19) (see Inst. II.1.6-9). See William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), pp. 130-42. 136. See George Downame, A Treatise of Justification (London: Bourne, 1633), pp. 94-95. 137. Hodge, Romans, p. 155. 138. Johann Gerhard, Loci theologici, locus decimus sextus, 1.25.

Chapter 2

Sacrificial Suffering and Death In the Torah, the Temple cult provides the means of expiation for those violations of the Law that are forgivable.1 Three types of sacrifice brought by an individual are expiatory, by which is meant able to remove the guilt resulting from sin: the burnt offering, the sin offering and the guilt offering (Leviticus 1–7). These sacrifices could also be offered for communal sin (see Num. 15.22-26; 2 Chron. 29.24). The animals used as sacrifices must be without any defect (Mymt).2 Commonly in Leviticus and Numbers, a priest as a representative of Yhwh expiates for the offerer by means of a sacrifice and the offerer is forgiven (Lev. 4.20, 26, 31, 35; 5.10, 13, 16, 18; 6.7; 19.22; Num. 15.28). In some cases, the blood itself is said to expiate, indicating that it is the death of the sacrificial victim is required for it to be expiatory (Exod. 30.10; Lev. 6.30, 8.15; 16.15-19, 27). The principle behind the practice of sacrifice is provided in Lev. 17.11: ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to expiate for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that expiates’. It is the life of the animal as represented by its blood that provides expiation for the offerer. In other words, the life of the animal is given in instead of that of the offerer. The animal thereby dies in his place, and there is an exchange of statuses between them.3 Laying his hands on the head of the sacrificial victim is the means by which the offerer’s identification with it is accomplished.4 Implied by the sacrificial rite is that there is a causal relation between sin and death. The effect of a sacrifice on God is described as being a fragrant aroma; it is acceptable to God and by implication it has been effective in 1. Num. 15.22-31 explicitly distinguishes between one who disobeys unintentionally (hgg#$b), for whom a priest can atone, and one who disobeys intentionally (‘with a high hand’), for whom the consequence is extirpation. The one who sins ‘with a high hand’ ‘despises the word of the Lord’. 2. Exod. 12.5; Lev. 1.3, 10; 3.1, 6; 4.3, 23, 28, 32; 5.15, 18; 6.6; 9.2, 3; 14.10; 22.19; 23.12, 18; Num. 6.14; 19.2; 28.3, 9, 11, 19, 31; 29.2, 8, 13, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 36. 3. Exod. 29.10, 15, 19; Lev. 1.4; 3.2, 8, 13; Lev. 4.4, 15, 24, 29, 33; 8.14, 18, 22; 16.21; Num. 8.12. 4. Lev. 1.4; 3.2, 8, 13; 4.4, 15, 24, 29, 33; 8.14, 18, 22; 16.21; see Exod. 29.10, 15, 19.



2.   Sacrificial Suffering and Death 51

expiating for the offerer.5 A change in God’s disposition towards the offerer has occurred. In various ways, the New Testament interprets Christ’s death by means of the metaphor of sacrifice. The Torah’s provisions for the expiation by means of animal sacrifices serve to elucidate the meaning of Jesus’ suffering and death: he is the one, true sacrifice. This is supplemental to the depiction of Christ as both High Priest and sacrifice in Hebrews.6 1. Christ’s Death as Sacrifice John the Baptist is said to have announced about Jesus, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’ (Jn 1.29; see 1.36). What he means by calling Jesus the ‘lamb of God’ is not provided, but probably he is referring to him metaphorically as a sacrifice. If so, then the act of taking away of the sin of world is expiatory. The same is true of the lamb that was slain in Revelation 5, who purchased for God a people by means of his blood; in this case two ideas are being combined: sacrifice and a price paid (5.6-12; see also 7.14 ‘made them white in the blood of the Lamb’ and 13.8 ‘the lamb who has been slain’).7 Peter makes a passing reference to being sprinkled by the blood of Jesus Christ (r(antismo_n ai#matoj 'Ihsou~ Xristou~) (1 Pet. 1.2). The phrase ‘sprinkled with his blood’ would call to mind the Exodus narrative in which Moses, as part of the process of ratifying the covenant between them and Yahweh, sprinkles the Israelites with blood from burnt offerings and peace offerings and solemnly pronounces, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you’ (Exod. 24.8). Like the author of Hebrews, Peter may be depicting Christ’s death as the means by which the new covenant is inaugurated, although there are no other contextual indicators of this. There are two other instances in the Torah where blood is sprinkled on people. First, Aaron and his sons along with their priestly garments are sprinkled with blood as part of their ordination to the priesthood (Exod. 29.21). Second, an Israelite with a skin disease as part of a cleansing ceremony is sprinkled with a mixture 5. Gen. 8.21; Exod. 29.18, 25, 41; Lev. 1.9, 13, 17; 2.2, 9, 12; 3.5, 16; 4.31; 6.15, 21; 8.21, 28; 17.6; 23.13, 18; 26.31; Num. 15.3, 7, 10, 13. 6. See John Pye Smith, Four Discourses on the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Jesus Christ (London: Jackson & Walford, 1842); Alfred Cave, The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877), pp. 265-311; A.A. Hodge, The Atonement (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1867), pp. 122-49. Paul Fiddes discusses the idea of Christ as sacrifice, but unfortunately dilutes it to the point that it means merely that Christ’s death has the effect of causing human beings to forsake sin (Past Event and Present Salvation [Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1988], pp. 61-82). 7. See other references to the lamb in Rev. 7.17; 13.8; 17.14; 19.7, 9; 21.22-23; 22.1-3.

52

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

of blood and water by means of the instrument of a living bird, a scarlet thread and hyssop (Lev. 14.6-7).8 Probably, rather than alluding to one particular scriptural source, Peter has in mind the general idea of Christ’s death as sacrificial. Paul interprets Jesus’ death as sacrificial in its purpose and effects. In exhorting his readers to love as Christ loved, he describes metaphorically how Christ gave himself ‘for us’ (as) ‘an offering and sacrifice to God, for a fragrant aroma’ (Eph. 5.2).9 To say that Christ ‘gave himself for us’ describes his voluntary death for human beings. The phrase ‘an offering and sacrifice to God’ is a predicative accusative, explicative of what it means for Christ to give himself for us.10 It is probable that the phrase is a hendiadys, two words designed to express a single idea: Christ as sacrifice.11 The dative ‘to God’ is a dative of indirect object, so that Christ is offered metaphorically as a sacrifice to God, as sacrifices are in general.12 The purpose of Christ as sacrifice is said to be ‘for a fragrant aroma’.13 As indicated, the phrase ‘fragrant aroma’ is used in the Old Testament to describe the intended effect that the sacrifice is to have on God: insofar as it is a ‘for a fragrant aroma’ to God, a sacrifice is acceptable to God and effects a change in God’s disposition to the one on whose behalf it is offered. In other words, it results in the forgiveness of sins.14 Paul’s point is that Christ’s sacrifice of himself was acceptable to God as a means of expiation for those for whom he gave himself (‘us’). The metaphor of sacrifice is extensively developed by the early church, beyond what occurs in the New Testament; it was found to be particularly useful in explaining the significance of Christ’s suffering and death. The early church fathers frequently identify animal sacrifices as typological of the sacrificial death of Christ. Alluding to 1 Pet. 1.2, the author of the Letter of Barnabas elaborates, ‘For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up his flesh to corruption, in order that we might be sanctified through the forgiveness of sins, which is by his blood of sprinkling (e0n tw~| ai#mati tou~ 8. Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 52-54. The use of the purification of a leper as symbolic of expiation of sin may occur in Ps. 51.7a ‘Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean’. 9. prosfora_n kai_ qusi&an tw~| qew~| ei)j o)smh_n eu)wdi/aj 10. H. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), p. 648. 11. P.T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), p. 355. See lxx Ps. 39.7 (40.6) for the use of both terms together. 12. Hoehner, Ephesians, p. 655. 13. The genitive relation between ‘aroma’ and ‘fragrant’ is that of quality. 14. See the phrase ‘fragrant aroma to the Lord’ (o)smh_ eu)wdi/aj tw~| kuri/w)| in lxx Lev. 1.9, 13, 17; 2.2, 9, 12; 3.5; 4.31 and ‘fragrant aroma to all their idols’ (o)smh_ eu)wdi/aj pa~si toi~j ei)dw&loij au)tw~n) in lxx Ezek. 6.13; see also T. Levi 3.6.



2.   Sacrificial Suffering and Death 53

r(anti/smatoj au)tou~)’ (5.1). For him, Christ’s sacrificial death, signified by means of the phrase ‘blood of sprinkling’, has for its purpose the forgiveness of sins, resulting in becoming sanctified. He adds that the son of God suffered for the sake of human beings (7.2)15 and that as a type of Isaac he offered himself as a sacrifice for sins (7.3).16 Justin Martyr explains that human beings are no longer forgiven by means of animal sacrifices, but rather by means of the blood of Christ, by which is meant Christ’s death: ‘Who no longer were purified by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of an heifer, or by the offerings of fine flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ, and through his death, who died for this very reason’ (Dial. 13). He finds a prophecy of this salvation-historical change in the fourth Isaian servant song (Isa. 52.10–54.6). Implicitly, he is claiming that typologically Christ is the greater sacrifice. Likewise, Clement of Alexandria explains that Christians do not offer animal sacrifices to God, but rather ‘glorify him who gave himself in sacrifice for us’ (Strom. 7.3).17 In the process of seeking to prove against the Gnostics that the creator is the same as the Father of Christ, Irenaeus refers in passing to how Abraham’s willingness to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice typifies God’s offering his own son as a sacrifice for human beings: ‘For Abraham…delivered up, as a sacrifice to God, his only-begotten and beloved son, in order that God also might be pleased to offer up for all his seed his own beloved and only-begotten Son, as a sacrifice for our redemption’ (Adv. haer. 1.5.3; see 4.5.4.).18 He combines two complementary theological categories in order to interpret the meaning of Christ’s death: sacrifice and redemption. Tertullian also understands Isaac as typifying Christ, insofar as Isaac like Christ was destined to be a sacrifice and carried wood on his shoulders, i.e. firewood. Because the meaning of this event was a mystery (sacramenta) that was to be fulfilled at the time of Christ, Isaac did not actually die, unlike Christ who was crucified (Adv. Iud. 13). He also explains that Christ was a sacrifice for all gentiles, which he finds foretold in Isa. 53.7 ‘Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth’. This is said to be fulfilled by Jesus’ silence before Pontius Pilate. For Tertullian, the lamb led to slaughter in Isa 53.7, to which the suffering servant is compared, is intended as a sacrifice. Likewise, Athanasius seeks to explain why the Word, the only-begotten Son, became a human being. In his salvation-historical function of dying for the

15. o( ui(o_j tou~ qeou~ ou)k hdu&nato paqei~n ei) mh_ di’ h(ma~j. 16. au)to_j u(pe_r tw~n a(martiw~n h(mw~n e1mellen…prosfe/rein qusi/an. 17. to_n d’ u(pe_r h(mw~n i9epeuqe/nta doca&zomen. 18. to_n i1dion monogenh~ kai_ a)gaphto_n Uio\n qusi/an parasxei~n ei)j lu&trwsin h(mete/ran.

54

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

benefit of human beings, in particular to rescue them from death, the incarnate Word is described metaphorically as sacrifice offered to the Father.19 Origen adds the interpretive gloss ‘that we are all cleansed by his death’ to John the Baptist’s statement ‘Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’ (Comm. Jn. 1.37).20 He holds that the Old Testament sacrifices have ceased because Christ as sacrificial lamb is sufficient to remove the sins of the whole world (Hom. in Num. 24). In his Homilies in Leviticus, he makes extensive typological connections between Jesus’ death and the Levitical sacrifices. He relates the burnt offering, which consists of a physically perfect (‘without defect’) male from the herd, to Jesus as a sinless man and a sacrifice for sin (Hom. in Lev. 1.3). In this context he cites Isa. 53.9 ‘who did no sin, nor was deceit in his mouth’, as describing Jesus’ sinlessness (Hom. in Lev. 1.2). Origen points out that in Leviticus an animal sacrifice is offered at the doorway of the tent of meeting, which is said to mean not inside but outside of it. This symbolizes that Jesus was rejected by his generation, as Jn 1.11 states: ‘He came to his own, and his own did not receive him’. He also cites the Parable of the Vineyard in which the tenant farmers kill the son and throw him outside of the vineyard as support for his view. In addition, Origen compares Jesus’ trial and execution to the procedure for sacrificing an animal described in Lev. 1.4-5. Jesus’ blood was shed in Jerusalem, the same place where the altar at the doorway of the tent of meeting is found, on which the blood of animal sacrifices is sprinkled. This typological correspondence explains why Jesus said that it would be inappropriate for him to die anywhere other than Jerusalem (Lk. 13.33). Similarly, the placing of the hand on the head of sacrificial animal is said typologically to represent the sins placed on Jesus’ head, who is the head of his body, the church (Hom. in Lev. 1.3). In his homily on Leviticus 16, Origen contrasts the old means of propitiation, Israel’s cult, with the new means, the blood of Christ, the Word, who is the true High Priest. He writes, ‘But you who come to Christ, the true High Priest, who by his blood 19. ‘Sacrifice to the Father for all’ (qusi/an u(pe_r pa&ntwn tw~| patri_) (Decr. 3 [14]), ‘a sacrificial victim and offering free from all stain’ (i9erei~on kai\ qu~ma panto_j e0leu/qeron spi/lou) (Incarn. 9.1), ‘sacrifice of his own body’ (tou~ i0di/ou sw&matoj qusi/a)| (Incarn. 10.5), ‘sacrifice for other like bodies’ (th_n peri\ tw~n o(moi/wn swma&twn qusi/an sw~ma), ‘sacrifice for all’ (th_n qusi/an th_n u(pe\r pa&ntwn) (16.4; 20.2); ‘to perfect the sacrifice’ (teleiw~sai th_n qusi/an) (21.6). Similarly, he describes how Christ assumes flesh through a virgin in order to surrender his body to death in the place of all and to offer his death to the Father: ‘Taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, he surrendered his body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This he did out of sheer love for us (a)nti_ pa&ntwn au)to_ qana&tou paradidou&j, proh~ge tw~| Patri&, kai_ tou~to filanqrw&pwj poiw~n)’ (Incarn. 8.3-4). 20. o#pwj tw~| qana&tw| au)tou~ h(mei~j pa&ntej kaqarqw~men.



2.   Sacrificial Suffering and Death 55

makes propitiation to God for you, and reconciles you to the Father’ (Hom. in Lev. 9.10).21 The reference to Christ as High Priest originates in Hebrews and the statement that his blood is a propitiation seems to derive from Rom. 3.25. As propitiatory, Christ’s death is the means by which a human being is reconciled to God. The blood that truly propitiates is the blood of the Word, not the blood of flesh, by which he means sacrificial animals. Origen then cites the Matthean version of Jesus’ word over the cup as confirmation: ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins’ (Mt. 26.28). Alluding to 1 Tim. 2.5, he adds that Christ is made mediator between God and man. Finally, interpreting Lev. 16.13 allegorically, Origen says that the blood was sprinkled on the east side of the altar in order to symbolize that propitiation comes from the east. This is an allusion to Zechariah’s song ‘with which the East (a)natolh&), i.e. sunrise, from on high shall visit us’, which is interpreted to mean the visitation of Christ who is like the morning sun and so can be called ‘east’ (Lk. 1.78). Like other early theologians, Gregory of Nyssa views the animal that Abraham exchanged for Isaac as typifying Christ, who also died. He also explains that, when he voluntarily lays down his life (Jn 10.18), Christ does so as a sacrifice: ‘He offered himself for us, offering and sacrifice, and priest at the same time, and lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’ (Trid. spat.).22 The reference to the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world derives from John the Baptist’s statement about Jesus (Jn 1.29), and the idea of Christ as both sacrifice and priest bears the influence of Hebrews. Because of his sacrificial death, Christ then becomes the ‘principle and cause of the common salvation of human beings’.23 Basil refers to Christ as the only begotten son, who gave his life for the world, when he offered himself to God as a sacrifice and offering for the sins of human beings. This is why he is called a sacrificial lamb and a sheep, as exemplified in Jn 1.29 ‘Behold the lamb of God’ etc. (Hom. Ps. 28.5).24 He explains further that only Jesus Christ the God-man, one who surpasses human nature, can offer a sufficient expiation for human beings (Hom. Ps. 48.34).25 Gregory Nazianzus understand Christ the son as a ‘willing sacrifice’ (e0kou&sion qusi/an) (Or. 1.7) and a ‘fitting sacrifice’ (qusi&an oi)keiota&thn) (Or. 6.4).

21. Sed tu qui ad Christum venisti, pontificem verum, qui sanguine suo Deum tibi propitium fecit, et reconciliavit te Patri. 22. kai\ e9auto_n prosh/negke prosfora_n kai_ qusi/an u(pe_r h(mw~n, o( i9ereu_j a!ma, kai_ o( a)mno_j tou~ qeou~, o( ai!rwn th_n a(marti/an tou~ ko&smou. 23. a)rxhgo_n kai_ ai)ti/an th~j koinh~j tw~n a)nqrw&pwn swthri/aj gene/sqai. 24. o( monogenh_j Ui9oj, o( didou_j zwh_n tw~| ko&smw|, o#tan me\n prosfe/rh| qusi/an kai_ prosfora_n e9auto_n tw~| qew~| u(pe_r tw~n a(martiw~n hmw~n, kai_ a)mno_j o)noma&zetai, tou~ qeou~ kai_ pro&baton. 25. o$j kai_ mo&noj du&natai dou~nai e0ci/lasma tw~| qew~| u(pe\r pa&ntwn h(mw~n.

56

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

He asserts that the sacrificial blood of Christ cleanses the world (Or. 4.68).26 Finally, commenting on Jn 1.29, Chrysostom interprets the use of the present tense ‘takes away the sins of the world’ to mean that the act is perpetual: ‘because this he ever does’ (w(j a)ei_ tou~to poiou~toj au)tou~) (In Ioan. Hom. 17.2). Ambrose uses the term mystery (mysterium) to denote the death of the incarnate Christ, which removes all the sins of the world (De Spir. 1.3). The animal sacrifices in the Old Testament, including the bull offered by Gideon (Judg. 6.26), are said to be a type of Christ as the only effectual sacrifice. He writes, ‘Only the sacrifice of the Lord's passion should be offered for the redemption of the people. For that bullock was, in a type, Christ’ (1.4).27 By the term redemption, he seems to mean forgiveness. Unlike animal sacrifices, Christ is the one and eternal sacrifice (Luc. 10.8). Ambrose further states that a human being cannot do anything to bring about propitiation and redemption because Christ has already done this through his blood (Enarr. in ps. 48.13-15). According to him, the animal from the flock that Jacob kills to make a meal for his father, Isaac, is a type of Christ who in the future will be the means of the forgiveness of sins (remissio peccatorum) (Jac. lib. 2, cap. 2.8). The implication is that Christ dies as a sacrifice. Interpreting Ps. 40[39].6 ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire’, Augustine says that the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were a prefiguration of a greater reality (En. ps. 39.12). Reflecting on the prohibition of eating blood in Lev. 17.10-12, he explains that no animal sacrifice was ever effective in removing the sin from a human soul, quoting Heb. 10.4 ‘For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins’ as scriptural proof of his assertion (Qu. hept. 3.57). Rather, he claims that only that Mediator who is prefigured typologically by all the sacrificial animals that have been offered for sin can obtain mercy for the soul of a human being.28 In an interpretation of Jn 6.53 ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves’, he asserts that all past animal sacrifices point to the one sacrifice by which there is true forgiveness of sins; unlike the animal sacrifices, human beings are encouraged to ingest this sacrificial blood. He writes, ‘This one sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true forgiveness of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the blood of this sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life

26. to_n ko&smon kaqh~rantoj ai#matoj. 27. Solumque sacrificium Deo Dominicae passionis pro redemptione populi deferendum. Etenim vitulus ille erat in typo Christus. 28. Restat itaque ut quoniam pro anima nostra exorat Mediator ille, qui omnibus illis sacrificiis quae pro peccatis offerebantur praefigurabatur, illud appelletur anima quod significat animam.



2.   Sacrificial Suffering and Death 57

are exhorted to drink thereof’.29 In his view, all of the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were mere shadows (umbrae) of Christ as the true sacrifice (Enchir. 41). Commenting on Ps. 130.4 ‘there is forgiveness (propitiatio) with you’, Augustine equates propitiation in the sense of forgiveness or expiation with Christ’s sacrifice, which wipes away all sins. He writes ‘The pouring forth of innocent blood wipes away all the sins of the guilty’ (En. ps. 129.3).30 2. Christ as i9lasth&rion In Rom. 3.25 Paul writes that God presented Christ publicly as i9lasth&rion ‘in his blood’ for the purpose of being able to justify sinful human beings.31 The phrase ‘in his blood’ is a reference to Christ’s death, so that it is as having died that Christ is i9lasth&rion. There are two interpretive possibilities for what Paul could mean by the term i9lasth&rion.32 In the lxx, the term is used to translate trpk (‘mercy seat’), the cover of the ark of the covenant, on the front of which and before which the High Priest would twice sprinkle sacrificial blood on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16.14-16).33 In Exod. 29. Illis sacrificiis unum hoc sacrificium significabatur, in quo vera sit remissia peccatorum: a cuius tamen sacrificii sanguine in alimentum sumendo, non solum nemo prohibetur, sed ad bibendum potius omnes exhortantur, qui volunt habere vitam. 30. Sanguis innocens fusus delerit omnia peccata nocentium. 31. The verb proti/qhmi is used in the middle voice two other times in Paul’s letters (Rom. 1.13; Eph. 1.9); in both cases the meaning is ‘to plan or purpose’. Moreover, the cognate noun pro&qesij ocurs in Rom. 8.28; 9.11; Eph. 1.11; 3.11; 2 Tim. 1.9; 3.10 with the meaning of ‘purpose’. This suggests that the phrase o$n proe/qeto h( qeo_j should be translated as ‘whom God purposed [to be]’ rather than ‘whom God set forth publicly’. Also, this agrees with the salvation-historical context of Rom. 3.22-26. See C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; ICC n.s.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 1979), II, pp. 208-209; A. Pluta, Gottes Bundestreue (SBS, 34; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969), pp. 59-62. A problem with interpreting proti/qhmi as used in the middle voice as meaning ‘to plan or purpose’, however, is the grammatically awkward double accusative that results: o$n as the direct object and i9lasth&rion as predicative accusative. 32. On this question, see J. Rivière The Atonement (2 vols; London Kegan Paul et al., 1909), I, pp. 48-50; A.J. Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), pp. 47-72; Pluta, Gottes Bundestreue, pp. 17-41. Jeremias suggests that Rom. 3.25 is allusion to Isa. 52.13-53.12: the term i9lasth&rion is a translation of ‘guilt offering’ (M#$)), which the servant is said to be insofar as he dies for the many (J. Jeremias, TWNT 5.704, n. 399). This is improbable, however, since i9lasth&rion is never used to translate ‘guilt offering’ (M#$)) in the lxx and neither the verb i9la&skesqai nor any of its cognates occurs in the servant songs. 33. i9lasth&rion is used as a translation of trpk in the lxx in twenty-two of its twenty-seven occurrences. Philo likewise uses the term to_ i9lasth&rion to denote the trpk (De cherub. 8.25; Vita Mos. II [III] 8.95, 97).

58

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

25.17, the lxx translates the Hebrew trpk with the phrase i9lasth&rion e0pi/qema, but in other passage simply as i9lasth&rion (lxx Exod. 25.18-22; 31.7; 35.12; 38.5, 7-8 [Heb. 37.6-9]; Lev. 16.2, 13-15; Num. 7.89). It has therefore been suggested that when Paul calls Christ i9lasth&rion he means to compare him typologically to the mercy seat: Christ is the means of expiation, being the typological fulfilment of this divine institution.34 If so, then Christ is both the mercy seat and the sacrifice at once (‘in his blood’).35 The anarthrous use of i9lasth&rion, unlike its occurrence with the article when used of the mercy seat, may be explained as the result of its predicative function, which requires the omission of the definite article.36 On the assumption that Paul’s use of the term i9lasth&rion should be understood in the context of its occurrence in Exod. 25.17-22, Origen argues that the meaning of the death of Jesus, whom he calls savior, is symbolically anticipated by the ark of the covenant and its use in Israel’s cult. For this reason, he allegorizes the details of the description of the ark. In particular, the role of the High Priest in making atonement for the congregation of Israel by sprinkling blood on the mercy-seat is said to anticipate the salvationhistorical function of Jesus, who as i9lasth&rion is both High Priest and sacrifice, as indicated in Ps. 110.4 as explained in Hebrews and by John the Baptist, who says that Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of

34. According to Targum Onlelos, Lev. 16.2 refers to the trpk (‘mercy seat’) as the ‘place of atonement’. 35. See A. Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit. Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 6th edn, 1991), p. 148; S. Lyonnet and L. Sabourin, Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice (Analecta Biblica, 48; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), pp. 157-66; T.W. Manson, ‘Hilasterion’, JTS 46 (1945), pp. 1-10; Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949), pp. 156-58; F. Lang, ‘Gesetz und Bund bei paulus’, in J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann and P. Stuhlmacher (eds.), Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1976), p. 309; Pluta, Gottes Budestreue, pp. 62-70; F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (TNTC; London: Tyndale, 1963), pp. 104-108; Martin Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), p. 45; B.F. Meyer, ‘The Pre-Pauline Formula in Rom 3:25-26a’, NTS 29 (1983), pp. 198-208; Peter Stuhlmacher, ‘Zur neuen Exegese von Röm 3,24-26’, in E. Earle Ellis and E. Grässer (eds.), Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 315-33; A. von Dobbeler, Glaube als Teilhabe (WUNT, 2.22; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987), pp. 78-87; Hultgren, Paul’s Mission and Gospel, pp. 47-81; Paul-Gerhard Klumbies, Die Rede von Gott bei Paulus in ihrem zeitgeschichtlichen Kontext (FRLANT, 155; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), pp. 126-28. 36. D.J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 233 n. 68.



2.   Sacrificial Suffering and Death 59

the world. Quoting Heb. 9.22, he adds that without blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Comm. Rom. 3.8).37 There is a second and more probable interpretive possibility to consider. Against the interpretation of Christ as mercy seat, it is objected that to describe him as both the offering and the place of offering at once is awkward and confusing. Also it is questioned whether the predominantly gentile church in Rome would have understood the allusion to the Day of Atonement without further contextual clues. In addition, the fact that Paul does not use the definite article before i9lasth&rion, unlike its occurrences with the meaning of ‘mercy seat’ in the lxx, could be taken to mean that he does not intend Jesus to be understood as typological of the mercy seat, but with the more general meaning of propitiation, in keeping with the original Greek meaning of i9lasth&rioj or i9lasth&rion.38 In Greek usage, outside of the lxx, i9lasth&rioj can be used as an adjective.39 On this interpretation, Paul’s use of i9lasth&rion may be adjectival: ‘whom God presented publicly to be propitiatory’. It is argued that the first occurrence of i9lasth&rion in the lxx in Exod. 25.17 as an adjective modifying e0pi/qema (a propitiatory covering) establishes that its other uses are also adjectival, even when there is no noun to modify. Or i9lasth&rion may be a substantive, denoting a means of propitiation.40 Regardless of whether i9lasth&rion should be interpreted as an adjective or a substantive, Paul intends that Christ’s death be understood as a propitiating sacrifice. He is depicting God as being angry because of the sins of human beings and therefore in need of being propitiated or appeased by the sacrifice of Christ.41 (The anger of God is a major

37. See Origen, On Matthew 12.2: ‘And as to one who needed propitiation—for he [Peter] did not yet know that “God had set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood”—he said, “God be propitious to you, O Lord”’. 38. See Lyonnet and Sabourin for uses of i9lasth&rion in Hellenistic sources (Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice, pp. 155-57). 39. See also A. Deissmann, ‘i9lasth&rioj und i9lasth&rion. Eine lexikalische Studie’, ZNW 4 (1903), pp. 207-208 and H. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (HTKNT, 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), pp. 110-11. 40. See Leon Morris, The Atonement (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1983), pp. 151-76. 41. A. Deissmann, Bible Studies (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd edn, 1903), pp. 12435; Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 87-88; Leon Morris, ‘The Meaning of hilastêrion in Romans 3.25’, NTS 2 (1955–56), pp. 33-43; Leon Morris, ‘The Use of hilaskesthai. etc. in Biblical Greek’, ET 62 (1950/51), pp. 227-33; Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956); John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965), I, pp. 116-21; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, I, pp. 214-18; D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings. Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967); Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 187.

60

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

theme in Rom. 1-3.)42 God is propitiated with the public presentation of Christ as i9lasth&rion ‘in his blood’.43 The reason that God presented Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice is ‘on account of passing over sins committed formerly in the forbearance of God’.44 Paul’s point is that Christ’s death as propitiatory sacrifice was necessary because of sins committed formerly that God left unpunished on account of his merciful patience.45 This assumes that the covenantal provisions for the removal of guilt in the Torah were insufficient and that any forgiveness granted was proleptic and provisional until Christ was presented as i9lasth&rion. Some exegetes who reject the interpretation of i9lasth&rion as mercy seat also prefer not interpret it to mean propitiatory or propitiation, but rather expiatory or expiation.46 They claim that the linguistic data require 42. The modern notion that it is unworthy of God to depict him as angry contradicts the biblical data and for that reason is theologically tendentious. While it is true that he is not like the gods of Greek mythology, who become irrationally and tyrannically angry and need to be appeased by means of sacrifice, nevertheless the biblical God is often said to have righteous anger, directed against all moral evil (see Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, pp. 129-36). See, for example, Exod. 32.10-12, 35; 34.6-7; Num. 14.18-20; 25.3; Deut. 4.25-26; 6.14-15; 29.25-28; Josh. 23.15-16; Judg. 2.11-15; 2 Kgs 17.9-12, 15-18; Neh. 9.17; Pss. 11.5-7; 30.5; 60.1-3; 78.38; 85.2-3; 86.15; 103.912; 145.8; Eccl. 12.14; Isa. 30.27-28, 30-32; 57.16; 66.15-17; Jer. 11.11-13; 19.3-4; 21.12; 23.20; 33.5; 44.2-6; Lam. 1.12; 2.22; 3.22-23, 42-43, 66; Ezek. 7.8-9; 8.17-18; 22.31; Dan. 9.16-19; Hos. 7.13; 8.5; 9.15-17; 11.8-9; Joel 2.12-13; Jon. 4.2; Mic. 7.1819; Nah. 1.2-3, 6; Zech. 1.2; 8.16-17; Rom. 1.18. Yahweh formulaicly refers to himself as ‘slow to anger’ in combination with other divine properties (see Exod. 34.6; Num. 14.18; Neh. 9.17; Pss. 86.15; 103.8; 145.8; Joel 2.13; Jon. 4.2; Nah. 1.3). 43. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, I, pp. 216; James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC, 38A; Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1988), pp. 170-73. The same term is used of the martyrs in the Hellenistic 4 Maccabees: ‘They became, as it were, as a ransom for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those pious ones and the propitiation of their death (tou~ i9lasthri/ou tou~ qana&tou au)tw~n), divine providence saved Israel, which had been exceedingly mistreated’ (17.21-22). The nation as a whole suffered justifiably on account of God’s wrath against national sin, but righteous individuals within the nation, those who refused to disobey the Law even under the threat of torture, suffer and die unjustly, and thereby became in a metaphorical sense propitiatory sacrifices, the divinely-ordained means by which God’s anger was appeased (see also 2 Macc. 7.30-38; 4 Macc. 6.27-29). Perhaps Paul or the early church was aware of this version of martyr theology and reapplied it to Jesus (Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, I, pp. 217-18). 44. dia_ th_n pa&resin tw~n progegono&twn a9marthma&twn e0n th~| a0noxh~| tou~ qeou~. 45. The word pa&resij is not a synonym for a1fesij (forgiveness), so that the meaning is simply that sins were left unpunished. 46. The verb i9la&skesqai, a cognate of i9lasth&rion, occurs twice in the New Testament, and in neither instance does it mean ‘to propitiate’, having God as its object. In Lk. 18.13 it has God as the subject with the dative of person (the sinner) ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner’ and in Heb. 2.17 it has Christ the High Priest as the subject with ‘sins’ as the accusative: ‘in order to make expiation for sins of the people’. The



2.   Sacrificial Suffering and Death 61

such a conclusion.47 In addition, in their view, it is theologically inappropriate to describe God as being angry with human beings and needing propitiation.48 But, since Paul uses a Greek word with the established meaning of propitiatory or propitiation and since God indeed is said in non-cultic contexts to be propitiated,49 there is no justification to translate i9lasth&rion as expiatory or expiation.50 Early Christian theologians correctly interpret Paul’s statement in Rom. 3.25 that Christ is i9lasth&rion to mean that Christ’s death is sacrificial, resulting in the possibility of the forgiveness of sins; in some cases his death is explicitly identified as a propitiation. In dependence on 1 Tim. 2.5, Irenaeus describes the result of the incarnation of Christ as becoming the mediator between God and human beings and as ‘propitiating for us the Father verb i9la&skesqai is relatively uncommon in the lxx, occurring only eleven times and translating the Hebrew xls (‘to pardon, forgive’) six times (2 Kgs 5.18 [bis]; 2 Chron. 6.30; Dan. 9.19), rpk (‘to atone, expiate’) three times (Ps. 65.3; 78.38; 79.9) and Mxn (‘to lament, grieve’). In these instances the verb has God as subject, not as object. The verb i9la&skesqai also occurs in Est. 4.17h with God as the subject: kai\ i9la&sqhti tw~| klh&rw| sou. The more common verb e)cila&sesqai, which does not appear in the New Testament, translates rpk eighty-three times and five other Hebrew verbs eleven times. In effect, it is virtually equivalent to the Hebrew rpk. When used in relation to human beings, the verb translates rpk and means ‘to propitiate’, having a person as its object (Gen. 32.31; Prov. 16.14). By contrast in most cases when e)cila&sesqai is used in a cultic context to translate rpk either with God or the priest as the subject the object of the verb is a human being (e.g. Lev. 4.20; 5.26; 6.7; 16.6, 11, 16, 17, 24, 30, 33; Ezek. 45.17), sin (e.g. Exod. 32.30), or both together (e.g. Lev. 5.18; Num. 6.11) or something holy that is defiled (e.g. holy of holies: Lev. 16.16; altar: Lev. 16.18; 27.33; Ezek. 3.22). 47. C.H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), pp. 82-95; Similarly, Eduard Lohse interprets i9lasth&rion to mean Sühneopfer (expiatory offering) (Märtyrer und Gottesknecht (FRLANT, 46; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), pp. 15-53), whereas Werner G. Kümmel prefers Sühnemittel (means of expiation) (‘Paresis und Endeixis: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre’, ZThK 49 (1952), pp. 154-67. See also E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 97; H. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (HTKNT, 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), pp. 110-11; Karl Kertelge, ‘Rechtfertigung’ bei Paulus (NTAbh, n.s., 3; Munster: Verlag Aschendorff, 2nd edn, 1966), pp. 55-58; G. Friedrich, Die Verkündigung des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament (BTS, 6; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), pp. 60-67. 48. See Martin Hengel’s summary of the idea of the propitiation of the gods in GrecoRoman religious culture (The Atonement [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 1-32. 49. Four times in the lxx e)cila&sesqai has the meaning of ‘to propitiate’, having God as its object (Zech. 7.2: hwhy  ynp-t)  twlxl; 8.22: hwhy  ynp-t)  twlxl; Mal 1.9: l)-ynp )n-wlx; Ps. 105(106).30: llpy). 50. Morris, ‘The Use of hilaskesthia etc. in Biblical Greek’, pp. 227-33; Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, pp. 136-56; John R.W. Stott, Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), pp. 170-75; S.K. Williams, Jesus’ Death as Saving Event (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 38-41.

62

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

against whom we sinned and thereby cancelling our disobedience by his obedience’, which is likely inspired by Rom. 3.25 (Adv. haer. 5.17.1).51 He holds that God’s anger against sinners is appeased because Christ nullifies human disobedience by his own obedience. Because it is said to be propitiatory in effect, the implication is that Christ’s death is sacrificial in nature. There occurs what could be described as an exchange of statuses between an obedient Christ and disobedient human beings. Exegeting Rom. 3.25, Origen asserts that through his suffering and death as a sacrifice, Christ caused God to be propitious to human beings; he adds by way of explanation that God gives redemption to the one for whom he makes propitiation (Comm. Rom. 3.8).52 In this context, to make propitiation means to expiate and redemption denotes the result of propitiation, equivalent in meaning to forgiveness of sins. Similarly, in his interpretation of Rom. 3.25, Chrysostom expands upon Paul’s statement that Christ’s death is i9lasth&rion by identifying his death as the fulfilment of the type of the sacrifices in the old salvation-historical dispensation (e0n th~| Palaia~)| . He writes, ‘And for this same reason he calls it a propitiation, to show that if the type had such force, much more would the reality display the same’ (In ep. ad Rom Hom. 7 [on Rom. 3.9-18]).53 He thereby makes explicit that Paul is comparing Christ to a propitiatory sacrifice. Chrysostom further argues that, if the blood of unreasoning animals resulted in forgiveness of sins, how much does the blood of Christ. Gregory of Nyssa likewise understands that Paul’s statement that Christ is i9lasth&rion means that he is a sacrifice (Perf. 8.1.187). Finally, the commentator known as Ambrosiaster connects the Latin term propitiator, used to translate the Greek i9lasth&rion (God presented him as ‘propitiator’), with the fact that God will be propitious to human beings on the condition of faith (Comm. in epist. Rom.). Likely, his meaning is that Christ is propitiator because his death is that of a sacrifice. He adds that by the death of Christ we are freed.54 3. Christ as Passover Offering The New Testament interprets Christ’s death as the typological fulfilment of the original Passover offerings. In the post-biblical period, the blood of the original Passover offerings is understood as effective in bringing about 51. Propitians quidem pro nobis Patrem, in quem peccaveramus, et nostram inobedientiam per suam obedentiam consolatus. 52. Per hostiam sui corporis propitium hominibus faceret Deum… et redemptionem dedit eum quem propitiatorem fecit. 53. o#ti ei) o( tu&poj tosau&thn ei}xen i0sxu_n, pollw~| ma~llon h( a)lh&qeia to_ au)to_ e0pidei&cetai. 54. Quia morte eius liberati sumus.



2.   Sacrificial Suffering and Death 63

Israel’s redemption or freedom from Egyptian slavery; what is implicit in the Hebrew Bible is made explicit. In the Mekilta, the ‘blood of the covenant’ in Zech. 9.11 is identified with the blood of the original Passover offerings, along with the blood of circumcision, by which the Israelites are released from the ‘waterless pit’, originally a reference to their Babylonian captivity, but reinterpreted to refer to Israel’s servitude in Egypt (MekhY [Pisha] 5.1-14; Targum Jonathan on Zech. 9.11). The same is true of the twofold blood in Ezek. 16.6 (MekhY [Pisha] 5.1-10).55 Similarly, Exod. R. 12.22 (17.3) and 12.43 (19.5) affirm that God protected the Israelites’ first-born in Egypt because of the two kinds of blood—circumcision and Passover blood. Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod. 12.5 also interprets the blood of the Passover offerings and of circumcision as the means of Israel’s redemption from Egypt. Finally, R. Meir is quoted as specifying that the redemptive benefit of the blood of the original Passover offerings is expiation (Exod. R. 12.1 [15.12]).56 In the lxx, Mekilta, and the Targumic material there 55. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978), p. 176. The Passover offering identified as h#& (animal from a flock) is not necessarily a lamb, but could also be a kid: Myz(h-Nmw My#&bkh-Nm (Exod. 12.5). In m. Pes. 8.2 and Mek. 12.3 (Pisha 3.45), the xsp is said to be either a kid (ydg) or a lamb (hl+). In the lxx pro&baton as the equivalent of h#& and then its two types as sheep and goats: a)po_ a)rnw~n kai\ tw~n e0ri/fwn. It seems, however, that lambs were more commonly used as Passover offerings than goats since later sources simply assume that the Passover offering is a lamb. Other possible backgrounds could be the servant in Isa. 53.6, 7, 10 (the term a)mno&j occurs in 53.7) and the Tamid offering (Num. 28.4). See the discussion of possible backgrounds in Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), pp. 143-48 and D.A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 148-51. 56. R. Meir is quoted as teaching that the redemptive benefits of the blood of the original Passover offerings was expiation (Exod. Rab. 12.1 [xv. 12]). According to him the first month was to be the time of redemption when God would see the blood of the Passover offerings and make expiation for the Israelites. Later a parable attributed to R. Meir is related, designed to explain the significance of the slaughter of the Passover lambs. He is quoted as teaching, ‘It is as if a king said to his sons: “Know that I judge persons on capital charges and condemn them; offer therefore presents to me, so that in case you are brought before my tribunal I may commute your sentences for something else”. So God said to Israel: “I am now occupied in judging souls, and I will tell you now how I will have pity on you, through the blood of Passover, and the blood of circumcision, and I will forgive you”’. Forgiveness was obtained in part through the blood of the Passover lambs. That the Passover sacrifices expiated the sins of the Israelites is also implied in Josephus’ re-telling of the exodus narrative in Antiquities. The Israelites purified their houses by the application of the blood of the lambs (Ant. 2.312): ‘to purify’ (a9gni/zw) implies expiation; the term is used in the lxx to designate ritual purity. Similarly, R. Ishmael is quoted as teaching that the forefathers in Egypt had three altars: the threshold, the lintel and the two side-posts; the implication is that the blood of the Passover lambs was considered sacrificial and perhaps expiatory (Mek. 12.7 [Pisha 6.16-21]).

64

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

is evidence that, for its first-century participants, Passover anticipates a redemption analogous to the Exodus on the same date in the future. lxx Jer. 31.8 (38.8) places the restoration of Israel—and by implication the establishment of the new covenant—on Passover (e0n e9orth~| fasek). In the Mekilta, Nisan 15 is the designated time of redemption (MekhY [Pisha] 14.113-121). According to the poem of the four (Passover) nights found in the Palestinian Targums, on the first Passover night the world was created, and the Lord revealed himself to Abraham on the second Passover night. The third night saw the Exodus of the Israelites, in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. The fourth night, the time of Israel’s eschatological redemption, is yet to come. That Passover is the time of eschatological redemption is also found in Exod. R. 12.1 (15.11). The idea of the redemptive efficacy of the original Passover offerings is used to elucidate the nature of the salvation-historical benefit of Christ’s death. In admonishing the Corinthians about their non-exclusion of the sexually-immoral man (‘removing the old leaven’), Paul refers to Christ as the Passover offering: ‘For Christ, our Passover offering, has been sacrificed’ (1 Cor. 5.7b). Although this is the only time that he refers to Christ as the Passover offering in his extant writings, Paul probably holds that Christ is the typological fulfilment of the original Passover offerings. In other words, there seems to be a fully-developed paschal theology behind this passing remark. John likewise interprets Jesus as the Passover offering, whose bones are not to be broken (19.33, 36) (Exod. 12.46). Peter provides his readers with a paschal interpretation of the soteriological benefit of Jesus’ death: ‘You were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ’ (1 Pet. 1.18-19). The combination of the term ‘redeem’ (e0lutrw&qhte) and the description of Christ as ‘a lamb unblemished and spotless’ (w(j a)mnou~ a)mw&mou kai a)spi/lou) makes a paschal background probable, rather than Israel’s sacrificial cult in general.57 The Israelites are said formulaically to be redeemed by Yahweh from slavery in Egypt.58 By his use of the term ‘redeemed’, Peter intends his readers to understand themselves as freed from a typologically analogous slavery, the readers’ ‘empty way of life’, which connotes sinfulness (see 1 Pet. 2.9 ‘called out of darkness’). 57. F.W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter (Oxford: Blackwell, 1947), p. 80; Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), p. 73; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commnetary on First Peter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 116. Contrary to Paul Achtemeier, A Commentary on First Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1996), pp. 128-29. 58. Exod. 6.6; 15.13; Deut. 7.8; 9.26; 15.15; 21.8; 24.18; 2 Sam. 7.23; 1 Chron. 17.21; Neh. 1.10.



2.   Sacrificial Suffering and Death 65

Describing Christ as a lamb ‘without blemish or defect’ connects him typologically to the original Passover offerings.59 Christ’s precious blood, by which is meant his death, is typologically fulfilling of the blood of the original Passover sacrifices, making possible the redemption from the readers’ former slavery.60 The fact that the lamb is ‘without blemish or defect’ no doubt symbolizes Christ’s sinlessness. Jesus seems to have interpreted his death as the typological fulfilment of the original Passover offerings.61 The more original version of Jesus’ word over the bread said at the beginning of Jesus’ last Passover meal is probably ‘This is my body (given) for you’.62 Taken by itself, Jesus’ word over the bread is a self-contained statement about the meaning of his impending death as for others. But when placed against a paschal background, his meaning can be further clarified: Jesus is interpreting himself as the eschatological Passover lamb that will bring about a greater redemption for Israel.63 Just as R. Meir sees the original Passover lambs as expiatory for the 59. This is true even though the Greek terms a!mwmoj and a!spilou are not used of the Passover offering (h#&) in lxx Exod. 12, but rather the term ‘perfect’ (pro&baton te/leion) (12.5). 60. That Christ’s death is the means of their being redeemed is expressed by instrumental use of dative timi/w| ai3mati. 61. See Barry D. Smith, Jesus’ Twofold Teaching about the Kingdom of God (NTM, 24; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press), pp. 243-56. 62. tou=to/ e0stin to\ sw~ma/ mou to\ u9pe\r u9mw~n (dido/menon). See Barry D. Smith, Jesus’ Last Passover Meal (Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993). 63. Some accept that Jesus’ last meal is a Passover meal, but still do not make use of a paschal context to interpret the word over the bread. Hermann Patsch devotes a section of his book to arguing that the Passover provides the only intelligible religious-historical background to the tradition of the Last Supper, but then ignores the relevance of this finding for a reconstruction of the inside of the event (Abendmahl und historischer Jesus [CThM, 1; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1972], pp. 151-58). In his view, Jesus understands his death in terms of the death of the suffering servant, and this is a natural continuation of his ‘service’ (see Mk 10.45), of his ‘Umgang mit den Sündern’. Heinz Schürmann likewise identifies the Last Supper as a Passover meal, but limits Jesus’ meaning to the motif of the suffering servant, arguing that the understanding of Jesus’ death as a sacrifice (Opfer), as reflected in Mark and Matthew’s versions of the words of institution, is a later development (Der Einsetzungsbericht, Lk 22, 19-20: II. Teil einer quellenkritischen Untersuchung des lukanischen Abendmahlsberichtes Lk 22,7-38 [NTAbh, 20/4; Münster: Aschendorff, 3rd edn, 1986]). Rudolf Pesch, Das Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverständnis (QD, 80; Freiburg: Herder, 1978), pp. 112-25 and I.H. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord's Supper (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980) accepts the historicity of the Passover context of the Last Supper, but view the background of the words of institution as Isa. 53 and Exod. 24.8. Marshall doubts whether Jesus compared himself to the Passover lamb (p. 86). Eduard Schweizer states that whether the Last Supper is a Passover meal or not is irrelevant to the reconstruction of the inside of the event (‘Abendmahl’, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 1 [A-C] [Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck,

66

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

generation of the exodus, Jesus views his own death as the corresponding eschatological expiation. It is as an expiatory sacrifice for sin that Jesus sees his death as for others.64 At the conclusion of his last Passover meal, Jesus takes the third cup, the cup of blessing, gives thanks for the meal, passes it around, and unexpectedly interprets it in terms of the new covenant, which is to be established by his blood, i.e. death.65 In all probability the more original version of the word over the cup is: ‘This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood’.66 The cup, or more precisely, the red wine in the cup, is metaphorical of the blood that he is about to shed. Jesus' word over the cup can be paraphrased as follows: ‘The wine in this cup represents the blood that I will shed when I die in order to establish the new covenant’. The tertium comparationis in the case of the wine is that it was a red liquid, like blood.67 Jeremiah 31.31-34 is the obvious candidate for the religious-historical background of Jesus' use of the term ‘new covenant’. If so, then in Jesus’ interpretation the forgiveness promised as part of the new covenant becomes a reality by means of his death, even though nothing is said in Jer. 31.31-34 of such a condition. If Nisan 15 is to be the day of Israel's eschatological redemption, it must be the day on which God would bring to realization the promised new covenant. Jesus seems to have made this connection between new covenant and Passover. Parallel to the way in which Isaac’s sacrifice or willingness to be sacrificed was seen as the expiatory ground of the Passover sacrifices in Egypt, Jesus sees his own death as typologically fulfilling the original Passover sacrifices as their eschatological counterpart, as giving them their true salvation-historical significance. The tradition of the Binding of Isaac would make Jesus’ communication to his disciples of his own understanding of his death as typological of the original Passover sacrifices relatively

3rd edn, 1957], pp. 10-21 [18]). Even if it is a Passover meal, paschal motifs would have played no role in defining the event, since Jesus would infuse the meal with an entirely new significance. 64. This is how Matthew understood Jesus’ death, as is evident by the interpretive gloss connected with the word over the cup: ‘for the forgiveness of sins’. Matthew is making explicit what is implicit. See Joseph Bonsirven, Le règne de Dieu (Paris: Aubier, 1957), pp. 174-81; Joachim Gnilka, Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 279-87. 65. See Smith, Jesus’ Twofold Teaching about the Kingdom of God, pp. 230-38. 66. tou=to to\ poth/rion h9 kainh\ diaqh/kh e0n tw~| ai3mati/ mou. See Barry D. Smith, ‘The More Original Form of the Words of Institution’, ZNW 83 (1992), pp. 166-86. 67. Wine as a metaphor of blood is well-attested in the Bible and second-Temple Jewish writings (see Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 223-24).



2.   Sacrificial Suffering and Death 67

simple.68 It is just a matter of replacing Isaac with himself, and making a few necessary alterations.69 68. Mount Moriah, the place where Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed, was identified in second-Temple interpretation as the site where David would later build the Temple. Josephus makes this explicit (Ant. 1.226), and Targum Neofiti on Gen. 22 also makes the connection between Mt. Moriah and the Temple mount, including the antediluvian altars built by Adam and Noah. Jubilees likewise makes a point of identifying the mountain of the Lord on which Abraham bound Isaac (Jub. 18.7-18) with the mountain on which the Temple would later be built—Mt. Zion (Jub. 18.13). The point is clear: the Binding of Isaac is related salvation-historically to the cultic center of the world where the expiation of sin takes place. 69. At some point in the development of Jewish haggadah, the Binding of Isaac and its expiatory value was brought into relation with the Passover (Geza Vermes, ‘Redemption and Genesis XXII’, in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Haggadic Studies (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961); H.-J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961], pp. 141-49; Roger le Déaut, La nuit paschale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42 [AnBib, 22; Rome: Institut biblique pontificial, 1963]; Notker Füglister, Die Heilsbedeutung des Pascha [SANT, 8; Munich: Kösel, 1963]). The blood of the Passover lambs was viewed as efficacious as a result of Abraham’s prior willingness to sacrifice Isaac and Isaac’s willingness to be sacrificed (see Josephus, Ant. 1.22-236; 4 Macc. 13.12, 16.20; Sipre Deut. 6.5 (32); LAB 18.5; 32.2-4; 40.2). The Fragmentary Targum on Gen. 22 puts the following prayer in Abraham’s mouth after he sacrificed the ram caught in the thicket: ‘And now I pray for mercies before you, O Lord God, that when the children of Isaac offer in the hour of need, the binding of Isaac their father you may remember on their behalf, and remit and forgive their sins, and deliver them out of all need’. The hour of need probably refers to the Egyptian slavery. Similarly, the Mekilta interprets the phrase in Exod. 12.13 ‘And when I see the blood’ as ‘(when) I see the blood of Isaac’ (Mek. 12.13 [Pisha 7.78-82]). Later it interprets ‘blood’, in the phrase ‘And when he sees the blood’ in Exod. 12.23 also to mean the blood of Isaac: when Abraham named the place where he bound and was willing to sacrifice Isaac ‘The Lord will see’, what he meant, according to R. Ishmael, was that God would see the blood of Isaac when the angel of death passed over the houses of the Israelites (Mek. 12.23 [Pisha 11.92-96]). According to the Mekilta, Isaac’s blood was actually shed before the ram was exchanged for him. Genesis Rabbah, however, states that not a drop of Isaac’s blood was shed; it was his readiness to be sacrificed that was meritorious (22.12). At any rate, Isaac’s act was seen as being the basis of the expiatory value of the Passover lambs. The same idea occurs in the poem of the four (Passover) nights in the Palestinian Targums, where it is specified that the binding of Isaac took place on Passover night. The occurrence of the Passover on the same night in which Isaac was offered up was not coincidental, but derives from the fact that both events belong together salvation-historically. Jubilees confirms this connection between Passover and the binding of Isaac, when it says that the incident on Mt. Moriah involving Abraham and Isaac occurred on Nisan 15 (Jub. 17/18; see also Exod. Rab. 15.11). Similarly, R. Meir brought Gen. 22.8 (‘God will provide Himself a lamb…’, i.e. a substitution for Isaac) into association with Exod. 12.5 (‘Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year’). Previously, in his midrash on Exod. 12, R. Meir said that the Passover lambs made expiation for Israel;

68

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Whether Jesus spoke more explicitly about the typological correspondence between his impending death and the Passover sacrifices in Egypt is difficult to prove. The sources are silent in this regard. If Jesus said nothing more than the word over the bread and the word over the cup, it would be difficult for his disciples to understand his meaning. For this reason, it is suggested that during the Passover haggadah, Jesus spoke at length concerning himself as the eschatological Passover lamb.70 Since during the Passover haggadah, elements of the meal, including the Passover lamb, were interpreted as symbolic of some aspect of the experience of the generation of the exodus, Jesus took this opportunity to speak about his death in terms of the original Passover sacrifices.71 The early church further develops the understanding of Christ’s death as the typological fulfillment of the original Passover offerings, in some cases interpreting it as a mystery, by which is meant an anticipatory symbolic act or typology.72 There is a tendency to connect intertextually Jesus as Passby extension Isaac is really the expiatory ground of the Passover sacrifices (Exod. Rab. 17.3). Even the striking of the two side-posts is said to have been effective as a result of the merit of Isaac and Jacob; it was for them that God did not allow the Destroyer to enter (Exod. Rab. 12.22 [17.3]). The merit of Isaac likely was his binding. Not only did his binding render efficacious the Passover offerings, other sacrifices were intended to be a memorial of Isaac’s willing offering of himself and they derived their efficacy from this event (see Vermes, ‘Redemption and Genesis XXII’; Füglister, Die Heilsbedeutung des Pascha, pp. 210-15). 70. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 224-25; See A.J.B. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1952), pp. 45-46. 71. This raises a related problem: if he is the typological fulfilment of the Passover sacrifices offered in Egypt, then why does not Jesus use the Passover lamb to make this connection? It seems that Jesus finds this to be inappropriate. Jews differentiated between the Passover offerings in Egypt and subsequent Passover offerings (m. Pesah. 9.5). One difference was that the latter were classified as non-expiatory, minor sacrifices, whereas the Passover offerings in Egypt were sui generis and expiatory. Added to this is the fact that the succulent, roasted lamb—the focus of the festival meal—is scarcely an appropriate means by which to interpret such a solemn event such as death. There would be a conflict between the tenor and the vehicle of the metaphor. The wine and the unleavened bread, which are not the focus of the meal, are more appropriate vehicles (wine was already used as a metaphor for blood). Jesus probably interprets his imminent death with reference to the slaughter of the original Passover lambs remembered as part of the Passover haggadah, and then chooses two appropriate times with their corresponding foods to function as metaphors by which to communicate the significance of his death— to reinforce what he said earlier (Higgins, Lord’s Supper, pp. 50-51; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 222-23; Gustaf Dalman, Jesus–Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels (London: SPCK, 1929), pp. 122-23. 72. Rupert Feneberg argues correctly that the connection between Passover and the Eucharist is part of the tradition of the early church (Christliche Passafeier und Abendmahl. Eine biblisch-hermeneutische Untersuchung der neutestamentlichen Einsetzungsbericht [SANT, 27; Munich: Kösel, 1971]. The Last Supper is seen as the eschatological



2.   Sacrificial Suffering and Death 69

over to other scriptural texts, including Isa. 53.7 ‘lamb to the slaughter’. Justin Martyr explains to Tryphon that the Passover offering is a type of Christ and the act of marking the house with blood represents believing in Christ. He writes, ‘The mystery, then, of the lamb (pro&baton) that God enjoined to be sacrificed as the Passover, was a type of Christ; with whose blood, in proportion to their faith in him, they anoint their houses, i.e., themselves, who believe on him’ (Dial. 40). He adds that the two spits used in the roasting of the Passover offering symbolize the cross, which is perhaps a little interpretively strained. Justin also connects Christ as the Passover lamb with the lamb led to the slaughter of Isa. 53.7. He writes, ‘For the Passover was Christ, who was afterwards sacrificed, as also Isaiah said, “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter”’ (Dial. 111). The blood of Christ as the Passover will likewise deliver from death, and is said to be for the future salvation (swthri/a) of the human race. Melito of Sardis identifies the Jewish Passover, which he also calls a mystery, as the type or model of Christ’s suffering and death, what he calls the truth of the type, or its model. By his death, Christ acquires for human beings release from the servitude to the world symbolized by Egypt and from bondage to the devil, symbolized by Pharaoh (Pasch. 67). In addition, Christ as the typological fulfilment of the Passover provides other soteriological advantages: ‘I am your forgiveness, I am the Passover of your salvation, I am the lamb that was sacrificed for you, I am your ransom’ (Pasch. 103).73 Ireneaus likewise identifies the original Passover offerings as pointing typologically to the suffering and death of Christ: ‘And the name of this mystery is passion, the source of deliverance’ (Demonstr. 25). He claims that the Jewish Passover is one of the many ways in which the scriptures testify to Christ: ‘Of the day of his passion, too, he was not ignorant; but foretold him, after a figurative manner, by the name given to the Passover; and at that very festival, which had been proclaimed such a long time previously by Moses, did our Lord suffer, thus fulfilling the Passover’ (Adv. haer. 4.10.1) (see 4.20.2 ‘the lamb who was slain, and who redeemed us with his own blood’). Similarly, Tertullian argues that the slaughtering of the original Passover offerings points to the death of Christ, which occurred at the same time in the Jewish festival calendar: ‘And added that “it was the Passover of the Lord’, that is, the passion of Christ. Which prediction was thus also fulfilled, that “on correspondent to and fulfilment of the Jewish Passover celebration. He does not, however, attempt to take his investigation backwards to the historical Jesus, the next logical step in his argument. 73. Melito also typologically connects Christ to Isaac (Pasch. 69). In a fragment from his Catena on Genesis, he explains that the ram that was substituted for Isaac typologically prefigures Christ: ‘For the Lord was a lamb, like the ram which Abraham saw caught in the bush Sabec. But this bush represented the cross, and that place Jerusalem, and the lamb the Lord bound for slaughter’.

70

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

the first day of unleavened bread” you slew Christ’ (Adv. Iud. 10). Citing 1 Cor. 5.17, he calls the Passover lamb a type of Christ (figura Christi) (Adv. Marc. 5.7). In contrast to the innumerable animals sacrificed at a Jewish Passover, Origen says that the Christian Passover has only one sacrifice, Christ: ‘The Passover of the Jews consists of a sheep which is sacrificed, each taking a sheep according to his father’s house; and the Passover is accompanied by the slaughter of thousands of rams and goats, in proportion to the number of the houses of the people. But our Passover is sacrificed for us, namely, Christ’ (Comm. Jn. 10.13). In making this statement he is consciously dependent on the identification of Christ with the Passover in 1 Cor. 5.7b and Jn 19.35. Citing Exod. 12.23 and Jn 1.29, Cyril of Jerusalem finds a typological correspondence between the effect of the original Passover offerings and that of the death of Christ: ‘If the lamb (pro&baton) under Moses drove the destroyer far away, did not much rather the lamb of God (tou~ qeou~ pro&baton), which takes away the sin of the world, deliver us from our sins? The blood of a silly sheep gave salvation; and shall not the blood of the only-begotten much rather save?’ (Cat. lect. 13.3; see 13.19). His view is that Christ’s death as the typological fulfilment of the Passover sacrifices (‘lamb of God’) takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1.29) and delivers from sins, both of which mean the forgiveness of sins; for this reason, it saves, by which he means saves from the consequences of sins. Cyril says that the Passover was a type of Christ and then quotes from 1 Cor. 5.7b. He writes, ‘But it was a type of Christ, for Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, in order that he might undo the cheerless mastery of death and might by his own blood win all under heaven’. He also alludes to 1 Cor. 6.20, using it to elaborate on the meaning of Christ as Passover offering: ‘For we were bought with a price and are not our own, for one died for all, he whose worth surpasses all’ (Chr. un.). In his Paschal sermon, Gregory Nazianzus interprets the Passover as prefiguring Christ’s sacrifice (Or. 45.13). He writes, ‘But that great, and if I may say so, in its first nature unsacrificeable sacrifice, was intermingled with the sacrifices of the Law, and was a purification, not for a part of the world, nor for a short time, but for the whole world and for all time’. The fact that the original Passover offerings were lambs symbolizes Christ’s innocence and that they were males corresponds to the first man, Adam. He also connects Christ as Passover sacrifice with Isa. 53.4: ‘He both took on him our sins and bore our diseases’ (Or. 5.13). Cyril of Alexandria states that Christ’s death was prefigured by the Passover sacrifices; like them his death as the true lamb was a sacrifice for sins (Glaphr. in Pent. [Exodus] 2). Elsewhere he writes that the Passover sacrifices are a type of Christ. Alluding to 1 Cor. 5.7b, he says that the purpose for which Christ died as the true Passover offering was to destroy the gloomy dominion



2.   Sacrificial Suffering and Death 71

of death and to buy at the price of his own blood the whole world (Quod unus sit Christus).74 Ambrose connects Exod. 12.5 ‘lamb without spot’ etc. with Jn 1.29 ‘lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world’, thereby indicating that he views Christ’s death as the typological fulfilment of the Passover offerings (Ennar. in ps. 39.14). He explains further in parallelism that Christ’s cross provides forgiveness of sins and his blood washes the defilements of sin.75 Finally, Augustine states in passing his view that the Passover lamb offered by the Israelites (Exod. 12.3) typifies the death of Christ: ‘which was ordered by Moses to be offered by slaying the typical lamb (Exod. 12.3), to signify, indeed, the future death of the Lord’ (Spir. et litt. 28). In his Tractates on the Gospel of John, he explains that the Hebrew behind the Greek verb pascha is not pa&sxein (to suffer) but the Hebrew word passover or deliverance (xsp). The Israelites were delivered from their bondage in Egypt, which symbolizes the Christian’s deliverance ‘from the perdition awaiting this world’ by the blood of Christ (Io. ev. tr. 55).76 The blood of the original Passover offerings is a ‘prophetic figure’ of Christ’s blood,77 which Augustine further connects with the lamb led to the slaughter in Isa. 53.7 (see 120). He writes, ‘And now that prophetic figure is fulfilled in truth, when Christ is led as a sheep to the slaughter, that by his blood sprinkled on our doorposts, that is, by the sign of his cross marked on our foreheads’. Later in the commentary, he asserts that the original Passover was ‘a shadow’ (umbra) of Christ’s passion (117, 120) and quotes 1 Cor. 5.7 ‘our Passover has been offered, even Christ’ as proof (117, 120).

74. Tu&poj de_ h[n a!ra to_ xrh~ma Xristou~. To_ ga_r Pa&sxa h(mw~n u(pe_r h(mw~n e0tu&qh Xri/stoj, i3na to_ a)meide\j tou~ qana&tou katalu&sh| kra&toj, ai#mati/ te tw~| i0di/w| katakth&shtai th_n u(p’ ou)rano&n. 75. Et illum quidem oportebat pro omnibus mori; ut in eius cruce fieret remissio peccatorum, et sanguis ipsius mundi inquinamenta lavaret. 76. A perditio huius saeculi. 77. Figura illa prophetica.

Chapter 3

Being Justified and Righteousness of God 1. Being Justified by Faith in Christ In several of his letters, Paul identifies the soteriological benefit realized by Christ’s suffering and death as the possibility of being justified by faith, apart from the works of the Law. Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians have tended to disagree on the meaning of the term ‘to justify’. Taking a clue from the Latin word iustificare, which is used to translate the Greek word that Paul uses, dikaiou~n, the former understand the verb to mean ‘to make righteous’ in an inherent and infused sense: the word iustificare is a compound word consisting of the iustum (‘just’) and facere (‘to make’). For this reason, it is synonymous with the term ‘to sanctify’. As Protestant theologians have pointed, however, such an interpretation based on a Latin etymology is misleading and obscures an important aspect of Pauline theology.1 By ‘to justify’, Paul means rather God’s pronouncement of being without guilt.2 It does not mean to make righteous, but is a judicial declaration that a person is righteous, or, expressed negatively, is without guilt.3 The opposite of being justified is being accused 1. See Francis Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae II, loc. decimus sextus, 1; Johann Gerhard Loci theologici, locus decimus sextus, De Justificatione I; William Pemble, Vindiciae Fidei or A Treatise of Justification by Faith (Oxford: Edward Forrest, 1629), pp. 1-21 (6-7); Thomas J. Crawford, The Doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the Atonement (Edinburg and London: Blackwood, 1871), pp. 54-62. 2. The use of verb qydch or dikaiou~n with God as object occurs in scripture (Ps. 51.4; Rom. 3.4; Lk. 7.35; 7.29). A human being can also justify another human being (Deut. 25.1; Isa. 5.23; Prov. 17.15; 2 Sam. 15.4; Ezek. 16.52; Lk. 16:15). Finally, and most importantly, God can justify a human being (Exod. 23:7; Isa. 50:8; Rom. 5:18; Rom. 8:33-34; 1 Cor. 4.4; Acts 13.38-39). The opposite of ‘to justify’ in these usages is ‘to accuse’ and ‘to condemn’. 3. Roman Catholic theologians cite a few exceptions to this use of ‘to justify’: Dan. 12.3; Rev. 22.11; Tit. 3.7; 1 Cor. 6.11; Rom. 8.30. Of these only Dan. 12.3 and Rev. 22.11 are true exceptions. It seems that the Roman Catholic view seeks to prevent the possibility of a judicial declaration of a person as righteous who is not actually righteous. See E.B. Pusey, Justification (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1853). But see also Hans Küng, Justification (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1964), pp. 208-21.



3.   Being Justified and Righteousness of God 73

and condemned.4 It is Paul’s position that God declares a person to be without guilt because of his faith in Christ; he thereby escapes the consequences of his sins.5 Faith in Christ means appropriating by an act of the will the forgiveness of sins that Christ’s suffering and death make possible. In this context, faith is both intellectual assent and trust. It should be stressed that God’s declaration that the person who has faith in Christ is righteous occurs in the present, before the time of final judgment.6 After relating the account of how he rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy, Paul explains to his Galatian readers that even Jewish Christians know that ‘A human being is not justified from the works of the Law but only through faith [in] Jesus Christ’ (Gal. 2.16a).7 What Paul denies is that being pronounced to be without guilt by God is possible ‘from the works of the Law’ (e0c e1rgwn no&mou), by which he means on the basis of having done what the Law stipulates. The phrase ‘works of the Law’ is probably an objective genitive, meaning works that fulfill the Law. Paul means that it is impossible to be justified by obedience to the Law, implicitly because human beings are in the flesh, which is Paul’s term for being innately sinful. Jewish Christians would know this, because of their experience under the Law.8 According to Paul, a person can be justified only ‘through faith of Jesus Christ’ (dia_ pi/stewj 'Ihsou~ Xristou~), by which he means faith in Jesus Christ (objective genitive).9 The conjunction e0a_n mh/ is exceptive, meaning that being justified is exclusively possible through faith in Jesus Christ (see Gal. 3.22; Rom. 3.22, 26; Phil. 3.9; see also Gal. 2.20).10 In this context faith in Jesus Christ means appropriating the forgiveness of sins made possible by Christ’s suffering and death, which results in being declared righteous. Paul 4. The less frequently occurring noun dikai&wsij is the act of justifying, declaring human beings to be without guilt (Rom. 4.25; 5.28). 5. See Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), pp. 224-74. 6. Küng, Justification, pp. 249-63. 7. Ernest DeWitt Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), pp. 120-21; F.F. Bruce, ‘Paul and the Law in Recent Research’, in Barnabas Lindars (ed.), Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988), pp. 115-25 (125); Richard Longenecker, Galatians (WBC, 41; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1990), p. 84. 8. Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 116; Hans-Joachim Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Gal. 2,15–4,7 (WUNT, 86; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996), pp. 12-30; Franz Mußner, Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT, 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974), pp. 172-75. Mußner points out that Paul’s Jewish contemporaries would not have set ‘faith’ and ‘works of the Law’ in antithesis to each other (pp. 170-71). 9. See the parallel construction in 2.16c ‘we who believed in (ei0j) Christ Jesus’. 10. Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 120-21; Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz, pp. 20-21.

74

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

makes a similar point in Gal. 2.16b: ‘We believed in Christ in order that we might be justified from faith [in] Christ and not from the works of the Law’.11 The phrase ‘works of the Law’ is an objective genitive: works that fulfill the Law. For the one who has faith in Christ it is possible to be justified, or declared to be without guilt, even though obedience to the Law is lacking.12 In Rom. 3.24a Paul refers to some who are ‘being justified freely by his grace’ (see Rom. 2.13; 3.4, 20). The antecedent of the participle ‘being justified’ (dikaiou&menoi) is ‘those who have faith’ (tou_j pisteu&ontaj) (3.22), by which he means faith in Christ.13 (This means that Rom. 3.22b-23 functions as a parenthesis).14 The adverb ‘freely’ (dwrea&n) qualifies the participle ‘being justified’, and is parallel in meaning to the phrase ‘without works’ (3.21). The other adverbial phrase ‘by his grace’ likewise modifies the participle ‘being justified’, and stands in apposition to the adverb ‘freely’. Paul’s meaning is that by God’s grace, or unmerited favor and mercy, a person who is not actually righteous in the sense of being obedient to the Law can still be justified or declared to be righteous by faith in Christ.15 By faith in 11. Rather than the preposition dia&, used in Gal. 2.16a, Paul uses the preposition e0k in Gal. 2.16b (e0k pi/stewj Xristou=). Possibly he is influenced by lxx Hab. 2.4 o9 di/kaioj e0k pi/stewj zh/setai (‘The righteous by faith will live’), which he cites in Gal. 3.11. 12. See parallels in Rom. 3.20, 28; 4.5; 11.6; Phil. 3.7-10; Eph. 2.8 and the use of the verb with the preposition ‘into’ (ei0j) in Rom. 10.10, 14; Phil. 1.29; see Rom. 6.8; 1 Thess. 4.14. 13. There is a certain amount of redundancy in including the phrase ‘through faith in Jesus Christ’ (dia_ pi/stewj 'Ihsou= Xristou=) and ‘for all who believe’ (ei0j pa/ntaj tou\j pisteu/ontaj). Because of this, some commentators have interpreted the phrase pi/stewj 'Ihsou= Xristou= as a subjective genitive (rather than an objective genitive), so that it refers to Jesus Christ’s faithfulness. The point is that Jesus’ faithfulness or obedience serves as the cause of the righteousness of God (see the use of pi/stij in 3.3 and Christ’s obedience in 5.19). It is probable, however, that Paul includes the second phrase ‘for all who believe’ to stress the universality and inclusiveness of the possibility of faith in Jesus Christ. In Rom. 3.21–4.25 Paul consistently uses pi/stij to denote faith in Christ or God. 14. William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), pp. 85-86; C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; ICC n.s.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 1979), I, p. 205. 15. The term xa&rij occurs frequently in Paul’s letters. When used theologically, it usually denotes God’s undeserved favor and mercy to human beings, which is realized through Christ. In the lxx xa&rij is used mostly to translate Nx in keeping with the normal Greek meaning of xa&rij. The semantic equivalent of xa&rij in the Old Testament would be dsx, which is usually translated in the lxx by e1leoj (but see lxx Est. 2.9, 17) (see TDNT 9.372-402). The term xa&rij or its cognate xai/rein is used in a soteriological sense in some second-Temple texts. In Wis. 3.9; 4.14-15 ‘grace and mercy’ (xa/rij kai\ e1leoj) are said to be upon God’s elect; the two terms seem to be synonyms. In 1 En. 99.13, Gb reads ou0k e1stin u9mi=n xai/rein, referring to the fact that the wicked



3.   Being Justified and Righteousness of God 75

Christ, Paul means appropriating the soteriological benefit of forgiveness of sins, which results in being declared to be without guilt; this is made possible because of Christ’s suffering and death, in particular because of Christ’s death as propitiatory sacrifice (i9lasth&rion), as he describes in Rom. 3.25. What Paul says in Rom. 4.6-8 about Abraham establishes beyond any doubt that for him being justified and being forgiven of sins are functional equivalents. In this passage Paul quotes from Ps. 32.1-2 to make the point that the truth that God justifies or declares righteous the ungodly was personally known to David, who experienced forgiveness for which he was ineligible according to the conditions set out in the Torah.16 Paul interprets David’s forgiveness as the same as his being justified through faith and not by works. According to the interpretive rule of gezerah shavah (‘equal category’), Paul brings Ps. 32.1-2 to bear on his interpretation of Gen 15.6 ‘He reckoned it to him as righteousness’.17 The principle of gezerah shavah stipulates that, on the condition that two passages share a common word, phrase or theme, the less clear of the two passages may be interpreted in light of the more clear. In the case of the Ps. 32.1-2 and Gen. 15.6, what is common is the word ‘to reckon’ (logi&zein). In Ps. 32.1-2, David says that the man is blessed to whom God does not ‘reckon’ sin. Paul interprets the less clear Gen. 15.6 in light of the more clear Ps. 32.1-2. This means that for God to ‘reckon’ Abraham’s faith as righteousness is not to reckon or count his sin against him, but to forgive his sins and to cover them. Thus, contrary to his Judaizing opponents, Paul’s view is that Abraham was not already righteous before his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness.18 It should also be noted that Paul’s citation of the experience of David as described in Ps. 32.1-2 implies that God justified human beings apart from the Law in anticipation of the appearance of Christ, in spite of the fact that God ostensibly gave the Law to Israel as a means of life. Paul comments further on the meaning of being justified by faith in Rom. 5.1: ‘Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’. The participial clause ‘having been will be denied eschato­logical salvation. Finally, an occurrence of xa&rij in T. Levi 18.9 could be described as soteriological: ‘They [the nations] shall be illuminated by the grace of the Lord’. Why Paul chose this particular term is unknown. 16. J.C.R. de Roo, ‘The Concept of “Works of the Law” in Jewish and Christian Literature’, in S.E. Porter and B.W.R. Pearson (eds.), Christian-Jewish Relations through the Centuries (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), pp. 116-47 (138-39). 17. See Joachim Jeremias, ‘Zur Gedankenführung in den paulinischen Briefen’, in Abba (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), pp. 269-72 (271-72); C.K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1967), pp. 89-90; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, I, pp. 232-33. 18. Peter Stuhlmacher, A Challenge to the New Perspective. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), p. 65.

76

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

justified by faith’ (dikaiwqe/ntej e0k pi/stewj) summarizes Paul’s argument in Romans 1–4. He draws the conclusion that because believers in Christ have been justified by faith they have ‘peace with God’ (ei0rh&nhn…pro_j to_n qeo&n).19 In other words, Paul’s use of the passive participle ‘having been justified’ is causal: because they have been justified, they have peace with God. To have peace with God implies former hostility resulting from being under the wrath of God (1.18). The peace that believers have insofar as they are justified is said to be ‘through (dia&) our Lord Jesus Christ’. This is a shorthand way of saying that peace with God is made possible because of Christ’s suffering and death, which results in the forgiveness of sins. Roman Catholic theologians point out that the Protestant interpretation of Paul’s concept of being justified by faith is not found in the early church fathers. The implication usually drawn from this fact is that the Protestant doctrine is a theological novelty that challenges centuries of established doctrine that justification is spiritual renovation (‘being made righteous’). Augustine’s position functions to define the church’s teaching on justification. Even though he stresses sola gratia against his Pelagian opponents, Augustine nevertheless holds that being justified consists of infused righteousness, which then results in becoming qualified for eternal life. He explicitly rejects what will later become the Protestant doctrine: ‘Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law” (Rom. 3.28), have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works’ (Gr. et lib. arb. 18). Much later, Bellarmine interprets ‘being justified freely by his grace’ in Rom. 3.24 along Augustinian lines against Calvin and Chemnitz to refer to inherent and infused righteousness originating in God’s grace, which he equates with God’s liberality. This is said to be the efficient cause of justification (De justificatione. lib. 2, cap. 3). In Roman Catholic interpretation, the contrast between faith and works in Paul’s letters is actually between works that result from faith that appropriates divine grace and works that are the result of selfeffort. Being justified by faith means being made righteous by infused grace appropriated by faith, which then merits eternal life; for this reason it is possible for justification to increase. Some Roman Catholic theologians speak of a second justification, by which is meant continual sanctification that results from the first justification of infused righteousness. Paul’s affirmation that a human being is justified by faith means that being justified begins with faith. As the Council of Trent explains, ‘We are therefore said to be

19. The preposition pro_j + accusative can have the meaning of ‘toward’ or ‘with’. See Michael Wolter, Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil (BZNW, 43; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1978).



3.   Being Justified and Righteousness of God 77

justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation’ (Sess. 6, cap. 8). Protestants theologians usually respond to the claim that their view of being justified by faith is a theological novelty by citing some instances of it in the early church fathers, such as 1 Clem. 32.4: ‘We…are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith’. Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrrhus in his exegesis of Rom. 3.24 defines being justified as forgiveness of sins (tw~n a(marthma&twn th_n a!fesin), which we accept only by faith (Int. epist. ad Rom. c. III [3.24]). He makes the same point in his exegesis of Rom. 5.1: to be justified is to be forgiven of sins (V [5.1]).20 Finally, although he does not provide an explicit statement about its meaning, the fact that Origen gives as instances of being justified by faith the thief on the cross and the woman whom Jesus forgave in Lk. 7.36-50 indicates that he is equating being justified with being forgiven, as Paul intends (Comm. Rom. 3.9). (Origen stresses, however, that that good works must follow justification.) These examples are admittedly exceptional, but Protestant theologians would hasten to add that, whether early Christian theologians understood correctly its meaning or not, Paul clearly holds that being justified by faith is synonymous with being forgiven of sins. This is the soteriological benefit of Christ’s suffering and death. They have no choice but to conclude that this evangelical truth was partially lost until it was rediscovered in the sixteenth century. This fallibility on the part of the church fathers reinforces the Protestant position of sola scriptura. 2. The Righteousness of God a. Paul’s Concept of the Righteousness of God Paul makes use of the term ‘righteousness of God’ (h9 dikaiosu&nh tou~ qeou~) in order to elucidate the soteriological benefit that Christ’s suffering and death make possible for human beings. This important concept occurs most often in Romans (Rom. 1.17; 3.5, 21-22, 25-26; 10.3), but also in two of his other letters (2 Cor. 5.21; Phil. 3.9). Some exegetes have taken the phrase ‘the righteousness of God’ to be a subjective genitive: God’s own righteousness.21 As such, it denotes God’s covenantal faithfulness to Israel, so that it takes on the meaning of ‘salvation’ or ‘deliverance’, insofar as God is 20. h( pi/stij me\n h(mi=n e0dwrh/sato tw~n a(marthma&twn th_n a1fesin. 21. See John Reumann, “Righteousness” in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; New York: Paulist, 1982); A.J. Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), pp. 12-46; Dieter Zeller, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus. Studien zum Römerbrief (FzB, 8; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2nd edn, 1976), pp. 163-78.

78

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

committed unconditionally to Israel and therefore obliged to come to the aid of the nation. On this assumption, it is sometimes argued that it is a technical term occurring in the Old Testament and second-Temple writings. Most of the occurrences of the phrase ‘the righteousness of God’ in Paul’s writings, however, are best interpreted as the righteousness from God, in the sense of the righteousness possessed by human beings that originates with God.22 The contexts in which most instances of the phrase are found require such an interpretation.23 In these cases, the genitive phrase h( dikaiosu&nh tou~ qeou~ should be interpreted as a genitive of origin, and represents a distinctly Pauline theological usage.24 Both Martin Luther and the formulators of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent agree on this issue. As Luther comments, ‘By the righteousness of God we must not understand the righteousness by which he is righteous in himself but the righteousness by which we are made righteous by God’.25 Likewise, the Council of Trent declares the righteousness of God ‘is not that whereby God is righteous but that whereby he makes us righteous’.26 Of course, they disagree on the nature of that righteousness, imputed or infused.27 In Rom. 1.16, Paul explains that the good news is the ‘power of God leading to salvation (ei0j swthri/an)’ and in Rom. 1.17, he adds that in the good news the ‘righteousness of God has been revealed’.28 He means that the content of the good news is the possibility of receiving a righteousness that comes from God by means of faith in Christ.29 The reason that the good 22. See Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (WUNT, 2/4; Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 2nd edn, 1984), pp. 269-329. 23. In Rom. 3.25, 26, the phrase ‘the righteousness of God’ is a subjective genitive and does function as a synonym for ‘salvation’ or ‘deliverance’. In Rom. 3.5 the phrase is a subjective genitive also, but refers to God’s distributive justice, not his salvation. 24. See Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, I, pp. 91-98; 2.824-26; Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949), pp. 74-77; Hermann Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 159-81; Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith. The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (SNT, 68; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), pp. 214-15; Rudolf Bultmann, ‘Dikaiosyne Theou’, JBL 83 (1964), pp. 12-16. 25. Luther, Römervorlesung, WA 56. 172. 3-5. 26. Justitia Dei, non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit. 27. The Anglo-Catholic compromise of including both imputation and infusion as part of the concept of the righteousness of God is commendable for its desire for unity but still unadvisable, since this is not Paul’s view. 28. dikaiosu&nh…qeou~ e0n au0tw~| a0pokalu&ptetai. On this passage see Zeller, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus. Studien zum Römerbrief, pp. 141-49; Jean-Noël Aletti, Comment Dieu est-il juste? Clefs pour interpréter l’épître aux Romains (Paris: Seuil, 1991), pp. 1-24, 38-40. 29. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, I, pp. 91-102; Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline



3.   Being Justified and Righteousness of God 79

news is the ‘power of God leading to salvation’ is that having this righteousness from God is the condition of receiving ‘salvation’ (swthri/a).30 By the term ‘salvation’ Paul refers to the state of being saved from the negative results of God’s final judgment (Rom. 1.18). Since they cannot make themselves righteous by obedience to the will of God, in whatever form this may take (depending on whether a person is a Jew or gentile), human beings can only be righteous by receiving a status of righteousness from God.31 Paul’s expression ‘from faith to faith’ is probably an emphatic way of saying ‘by faith’, by which he means faith in Christ. Faith in Christ is a short form for appropriating by an act of the will the soteriological benefit identified as the righteousness of God, made possible by Christ’s suffering and death. Paul uses the phrase ‘righteousness of God’ again two chapters later in Rom. 3.21-23.32 What he writes presupposes his general conclusion in Rom. of his Theology, pp. 159-82; Nygren, Commentary on Romans, pp. 65-92. This is contrary to the interpretation of ‘righteousness of God’ as having the more general meaning of God’s saving act (Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 29-30; Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer [MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 12th edn, 1963], pp. 53-54; Glenn N. Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans [JSNTSup, 39; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990], pp. 36-38). D.J. Moo argues that Paul intends both the meaning of God’s making right in the sense of saving or vindicating and that of granting a status of righteousness (The Epistle to the Romans [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], p. 74). It seems, however, that, given the context, Paul means by ‘righteousness of God’ the status of righteousness that originates in God. If the meaning were God’s righteousness (subjective genitive) then Paul’s statement that in the good news is the power of God for the righteousness of God is revealed in it becomes redundant since the power of God and the righteousness of God would mean the same thing. 30. Rom. 10.1, 10; 11.11; 13.11; 2 Cor. 1.6; 6.2; 7.10; Eph. 1.13; Phil. 1.19, 28; 2.12; 1 Thess. 5.8-9; 2 Thess. 2.13; 2 Tim. 2.10; 3.15; see also ‘saved from his wrath’ in Rom. 5.9. Contrary to Luke T. Johnson, Paul does understand swthri&a in individual terms, not as a synonym for ‘belonging to God’s people’ (Reading Romans. A Literary and Theological Commentary [Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001], p. 27). 31. Those who argue that the phrase ‘righteousness of God’ is a subjective genitive point to the apparent synthetic parallelism between ‘power of God’ in 1.16 and ‘the righteousness of God’ in 1.17, which also stands in antithetical parallelism to ‘the wrath of God’ in 1.18. They argue that, in order to preserve the intended parallelism, the latter must be the same type of genitive construction. Other considerations, however, outweigh this argument from literary parallelism. In CD 20.20 the terms ‘righteousness’ and ‘salvation’ occur as synonyms and both are spoken of as being revealed: ‘Until salvation and righteousness will be revealed to those who fear God’. This passage has obvious parallels to Rom. 1.17. Nevertheless, for Paul ‘righteousness of God’ is the condition of salvation, because only those who have this righteousness (by faith) qualify for this salvation. 32. On this passage, see A. Pluta, Gottes Bundestreue (SBS, 34; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969); Thomas Schreiner, The Law and its Fulfillment (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), pp. 95-98.

80

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

3.20: ‘Therefore from the works of the Law no one will be justified before him [God]’. This leaves now only one option, for, in the light of universal sinfulness, obtaining righteousness can only come from God, which means that it is apart from doing what the Law requires. This is what Paul means when he writes, ‘But now, without the Law, a righteousness of God has been revealed’ (3.21).33 The conjunctive phrase ‘but now’ has a temporal sense, implying that the revelation of the righteousness of God is new in human history. He is thinking salvation-historically of the transition from the era of the Law to a new salvation-historical era inaugurated by Christ’s death and resurrection. The wrath of God characterized the era of the Law (1.18), but the righteousness of God characterizes the new era and creates a new possibility for human beings (3.21).34 Exactly why this is a new historical possibility Paul explains in Rom. 3.24-26: ‘Christ Jesus, whom God presented publicly as i9lasth&rion in his blood through faith’. The phrase ‘righteousness of God’ is a genitive of origin: it is a righteousness from God made possible by Christ’s death as a propitiatory sacrifice.35 For Paul, this new possibility of righteousness originating with God stands in antithesis to righteousness resulting from obedience to the Law. In fact, by definition, the righteousness originating from God is apart from the Law.36 He expresses this by saying that the righteousness of God is ‘through faith in Jesus Christ’; for Paul, ‘Law’ and ‘faith in Jesus Christ’ are opposite means by which a person can obtain righteousness.37 Faith has ‘Jesus Christ’ as its object, and is the appropriation of the righteousness of God made possible by his propitiatory death (3.25). Paul writes in Rom. 10.3 that Jews who reject the good news do so because they do not know ‘the righteousness of God’ and seek instead to establish their own righteousness, or a self-righteousness.38 The phrase ‘the righteousness of 33. nuni\ de\ xwri\j no&mou dikaiosu&nh qeou~ pefane/rwtai. 34. See Odette Mainville, Un plaidoyer en faveur de l’unité. La lettre aux Romains (SB; Montreal: Médiapaul, 1999), p. 43. 35. This is contrary to Robert K. Rapa, who argues that the ‘righteousness of God’ in 3.21 means ‘God’s attribute of righteousness which is shown forth in his saving activity’ (The Meaning of ‘Works of the Law’ in Galatians and Romans [SBL, 31; New York: Peter Lang, 2001], pp. 247). 36. The phrase ‘without the Law’ is an abbreviation of the longer phrase ‘without the works of the Law’ (xwri\j e1rgwn no&mou). 37. The phrase ‘righteousness of God’ in Rom. 3.22 is also a genitive of origin because it stands in contrast to the righteousness that is from the Law (3.21), contrary to Christian Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk (FRLANT, 86; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), p. 68; Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission, p. 31; James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 340-46. 38. See Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology, pp. 235-41; Gerhard Maier, Mensch und freier Wille (WUNT, 1/12; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1971),



3.   Being Justified and Righteousness of God 81

God’ stands in opposition to ‘their own righteousness’ (h9 i0di/a dikaiosu&nh); these are two mutually exclusive sources of righteousness (10.3).39 The phrase ‘their own’ should be taken in a distributive sense to mean ‘each of their own’ (righteousness) (see Phil. 3.9). Paul is criticizing the Jewish quest for selfrighteousness by means of obedience to the Law.40 To be ignorant of the righteousness of God is a shorthand expression for being ignorant of the fact that righteousness can only originate with God as opposed to being the result of obedience to the Law. Because it stands in contrast to ‘their own righteousness’, the genitive phrase ‘righteousness of God’ can only be a genitive of origin: it is a righteousness that has its origin with God, the very opposite of self-righteousness through the Law.41 In Paul’s assessment, unbelieving Jews reject the need to receive righteousness from God because they wrongly believe that they can establish themselves as righteous.42 The consequence of the fact that such people are ignorant of the righteousness of God is that they do not ‘submit’ to the righteousness of God (10.3b). This phrase seems to be an idiom meaning that unbelieving Jews do not abandon their futile attempt to obtain righteousness by obedience to the Law and appropriate righteousness from God that is possible because of the suffering and death of Christ. In Rom. 10.4, Paul further explains, ‘The te/loj of the Law is Christ for the purpose of righteousness to all who have faith’.43 The subject of the sentence is Christ, so that ‘the te/loj of the Law’ is a predicate nominative; the predicate is placed at the beginning of the sentence for the sake of emphasis. Given its context in Rom. 9.30–10.11, Paul’s meaning is that Christ is the termination of the Mosaic Law, rather than its goal.44 The salvationpp. 382-92; Zeller, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus. Studien zum Römerbrief, pp. 122-26. 39. E.P. Sanders wrongly concludes that it is not because he believes that no one can fulfill it that Paul rejects the Law (Paul, the Law and the Jewish People [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], pp. 36-45). Rather, he holds that Paul’s real object of criticism is Jewish nationalism and exclusivism. 40. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 634-35. 41. See Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 196. 42. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, pp. 253-55; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, II, pp. 514-15; Heinrich Schlier, Der Römerbrief (HTKNT, 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), p. 310; Stephen Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 114-16; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 633-35. 43. It should be noted that elsewhere Paul uses the word te/loj to mean both termina­ tion (1 Cor. 15.24) and result (Rom. 6.21). 44. Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 283-84; Ulrich Luz, Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus (BEvT, 49; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1968), pp. 139-57; Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Saint Paul, Epître aux Romains (Paris: Lecoffre, 1916), p. 253; Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit bei Paulus (FRLANT, 87; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), p. 93; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, pp. 255-56; Schlier, Der Römerbrief, p. 311; Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 197-98; Nygren,

82

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

historical era of the Law has come to an end with the historical appearance of Christ, insofar as his suffering and death mark the explicit termination of the possibility of obtaining righteousness by doing what the Law requires (see parallels to the idea of the termination of the Law in Rom. 6.14-15; 7.1-6; Gal. 3.25; Eph. 2.14-15; Col. 2.14).45 For him, Christ is the termination of the Law ‘for the purpose of righteousness to all who believe’.46 In other words, the purpose for which Christ is the termination of the Law is to make possible another way of obtaining righteousness than through obedience to the Law. The prepositional phrase beginning with ei0j expresses either purpose or result. Although in this context the difference between the two interpretive options is negligible, it seems that Paul means that the purpose for which Christ is the end of the Law is that righteousness would be now possible on the basis of faith. As the previous verse, Rom. 10.3, makes clear, this righteousness to all who believe is ‘the righteousness of God’ and stands in opposition to the futile attempt to establish one’s own righteousness. It is possible because of Christ’s suffering and death. In Phil. 3.9, Paul asserts that it is his aim to ‘gain Christ’ and ‘to be found in him’, which are expressions used to denote Paul’s spiritual union with Christ. As spiritually united with Christ, Paul says that he does not have a righteousness of his own, one that comes from the Law.47 Rather, he has a righteousness from God through Christ by faith.48 The participial clause ‘not having a righteousness of my own’ is probably modal, so that Paul is saying that having a righteousness from God is the mode of existence described as ‘gaining Christ’ and ‘being found in Christ’. In Paul’s view, there are two sources and types of righteousness. A human being can have a righteousness ‘from the Law’ or one ‘from God’. It is clear, however, that Commentary on Romans, p. 380; Andrea van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus (SBT, 5; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968), pp. 126-27, 185-218. Moo argues that te/loj in Rom. 10.4 has both a temporal and a teleological meaning (The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 636-43). 45. Andrew J. Bandstra argues that Paul could not mean ‘termination’ by te/loj because this implies that the obedience to the Law was actually a means by which righteousness could be achieved (The Law and the Elements of the World [Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1964], p. 101). While it is true to say that he believes that no one could ever be justified by obedience to the Law, Paul does nevertheless identify a historical period in which Israel had the demand of obedience to the Law placed upon it as a nation as the condition of covenantal blessing. It turned out that legalistic works-righteousness was only a theoretical possibility because perfect obedience to the Law was not possible. 46. Grammatically, the prepositional phrase ei0j dikaiosu&nhn functions as a purpose clause (see Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2, p. 519 n. 2; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 637 n. 34). The prepositional phrase is not adnominal, modifying the substan­tive ‘Law’. 47. mh_ e1xwn e0mh_n dikaiosu&nhn th_n e0k no&mourn. 48. th_n dia_ pi/stewj Xristou~ th_n e0k qeou~ dikaiosu&nhn e0pi\ th~| .



3.   Being Justified and Righteousness of God 83

he rejects the possibility of obtaining a righteousness from doing what the Law requires, even though this may be a theoretical possibility.49 Instead, the only possibility is to accept from God by faith a righteousness made possible by Christ’s suffering and death.50 This is what he means by the phrase ‘the righteousness from God’.51 It should be noted that the term that Paul uses is ‘the righteousness from God’ (h9 e0k qeou~ dikaiosu&nh) (parallel in form to ‘the righteousness from [the] Law’), but there is no doubt that this term is a synonym for the more common term ‘the righteousness of God’ interpreted as a genitive of origin. Finally, according to Paul, the purpose for which God made Christ sin on our behalf is that we might become (the) righteousness of God in Christ (2 Cor. 5.21).52 (The preposition ‘in’ [e0n] in the phrase ‘in Christ’ is causal.) The phrase ‘the righteousness of God’ is a genitive of origin: the righteousness from God. Thus, the idiom ‘to become the righteousness of God’ means to be the recipient of a righteousness that comes from God. In a sense, the recipient of the gift becomes the gift itself.53 3. Righteousness of God in Interpretation of Early Church Most early Christian theologians have at best only a partial understanding of what Paul means by the term ‘righteousness of God’. The commentator known as Ambrosiaster asserts correctly that, as used by Paul in Rom. 1.17, the phrase ‘righteousness of God’ means that ‘God freely justifies the ungodly by faith, without the works of the law’, citing Phil. 3.9 as a parallel passage (Comm. in epist. Rom.).54 He understands righteousness as 49. Schreiner, The Law and its Fulfillment, pp. 112-14; Robert H. Gundry, ‘Grace, Works, and Staying Saved’, Bib 66 (1985), pp. 1-38 (13-14). 50. Paul describes the ‘righteousness from God’ as ‘that through faith of Christ’ (th_n dia_ pi/stewj Xristou=), and then specifies that the righteousness from God is based on faith (e0pi\ th=| pi/stei). So because Paul mentions ‘faith’ twice, some exegetes conclude that the two pi/stij-phrases are not synonyms and so are not redundant. Rather the first phrase ‘through faith of Christ’ is a subjective genitive meaning Christ’s faithfulness, describing Christ’s faithful obedience unto death, whereas the ‘on the basis of faith’ refers to human faith that appropriates the righteousness from God (see P.T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians [PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], pp. 397-400). It is less confusing and therefore preferable to take th_n dia_ pi/stewj Xristou~ as an objective genitive (see Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians [WBC, 43; Dallas: Word Books, 1983], pp. 141-42). 51. See O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, pp. 380, 395-96; Moises Silva, Philippians (WEC; Chicago: Moody, 1988), pp. 176, 186. 52. i3na h9mei=j genw&meqa dikaiosu&nh qeou~ e0n au0tw~|. 53. See Hans Windisch, Der zweiter Korintherbrief (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9th edn, 1924), pp. 196-99. 54. Justitiam Dei dicit, quia gratis justificat impium per fidem, sine operibus Legis.

84

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

equivalent to truth (veritas) and both as meaning God’s promised salvation: ‘The truth and righteousness of God are revealed in this, when a man believes and confesses’.55 Subsequently, in his exegesis of Rom. 3.21, he seems to hold that the righteousness of God is equivalent in meaning to God’s mercy.56 What he does not explain clearly, however, is that the phrase ‘righteousness of God’ is a genitive of origin: righteousness from God; the phrase is not merely a synonym for God’s mercy or salvation. In addition, he does not clarify why the righteousness of God is the power of God leading to salvation, which is to say, a condition of salvation. Later in his commentary, it becomes clear that Ambrosiaster understands Paul’s phrase ‘righteousness of God’ as a subjective genitive, denoting God own righteousness, which is manifested as his keeping his promise of salvation. He writes, ‘The righteousness is of God because what he promised, he gave’.57 In his exegesis of Rom. 3.21, he asserts that God would not be righteous if he did not keep his promise to receive those who flee to him for salvation.58 For this reason, it is clear that Ambrosiaster has an inadequate understanding of the meaning of Rom. 10.3-4. Oecumenius misunderstands the term ‘righteousness’ in Rom. 1.17, interpreting it in ethical terms as virtue (a)reth&). As a result he completely misses Paul’s point in the passage (Pauli Epist. ad Rom. cap. I). His comments on the other occurrences of the phrase ‘righteousness of God’ likewise reveal a lack of understanding. Exegeting Rom. 10.3, he does, however, correctly conclude that the righteousness of God is the opposite of that from the Law, one’s own righteousness (cap. XVI). Likewise, Theodoret’s comments on the Pauline passages in which the phrase ‘righteousness of God’ occurs reveals that he has only the vaguest sense of what Paul means by it (Interp. epit. ad Rom). In his commentary on Rom. 1.17, Origen states that the righteousness of God is manifested insofar as salvation is offered to everyone, Jew and gentile, on an equal basis, without impartiality. It is safe to say therefore that he does not grasp Paul’s meaning in this passage (Comm. Rom. 1.15). Origen has a fuller and more insightful discussion of the meaning of the Pauline phrase in its occurrence in Rom. 3.21-26. There he identifies it with righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ, in contrast to that by the Law, by which a person is justified, purified from prior crimes and made fit for the 55. Ostenditur enim in eo veritas et justitia, dum credit et profitetur. 56. Ideo autem justitia Dei dicta est, quae videtur esse misericordia. 57. Justitia est Dei, quia quod promisit, dedit. 58. Ideo autem justitia Dei dicta est…quia de promissione originem habet: et cum promissum Dei redditur, justitia Dei dicitur. Justitia enim est, quia redditum est, quod promissum est: et cum suspicit confugientes ad se, justitia dicitur; qui non suscipere confugientum iniquitas est.



3.   Being Justified and Righteousness of God 85

glory of God (3.7). He stresses that it is ‘not by their merits, nor for their works’, but is freely made available to those who believe.59 In his exegesis of Rom. 10.3-6, he further explains that there are two righteousnesses, one by the Law and one by faith; the latter is identical to the righteousness of God (7.2). What is not clear from Origen’s exegetical reflections, however, is that righteousness of God is a genitive of origin; in addition, he does not explain how being ‘justified, and purified from prior crimes’ relates to it. Based on 1 Cor. 1.30 ‘Christ Jesus, who became for us…righteousness’, Origen identifies the righteousness of God with Christ himself (3.7). He argues that it is by special revelation that this is known: ‘Natural law teaches us about equity among men or to know that there is a God. But that Christ is the son of God, who is able to come to know this by nature?’ (3.7). Christ or the righteousness of God is revealed in the Law and the Prophets. For all its rhetorical impressiveness, Origen’s exegesis nonetheless does not elucidate the meaning of Paul’s use of the term ‘righteousness of God’. Augustine holds that the Pauline phrase ‘the righteousness of God’ is a genitive of origin, but mistakenly assumes that the righteousness that is from God refers to the internal renovation of a human being by the grace of God through the power of the Holy Spirit. Against his Pelagian opponents, he consistently interprets Rom. 1.17; 3.20-21; 10.3; 2 Cor. 5.21 and Phil. 3.9 to mean that God gives inherent righteousness to a Christian by grace, thereby enabling him to merit eternal life. Commenting on Rom. 1.17, he writes, ‘This is the righteousness of God, which was veiled in the Old Testament, and is revealed in the New; and it is called the righteousness of God, because by his bestowal of it he makes us righteous’ (Spir. et litt. 18). For Augustine, to have the righteousness of God is to be justified, which is to say, to be made righteous. Paul’s statement in Rom. 3.21 that the righteousness of God is manifested without the Law is interpreted as meaning without the help of the Law, not in the absence of the Law: ‘That righteousness of God, however, is without the law, which God by the Spirit of grace bestows on the believer without the help of the law, that is, when not helped by the law’ (Spir. et litt. 15). In other words, the Law demands but gives no help in obeying its commandments, which comes from grace. Similarly, when he says that they ‘do not know the righteousness of God’ (Rom. 10.3), Paul is supposed to mean that his Jewish contemporaries do not know that they cannot be righteous by obeying the Law without grace. He writes, ‘This righteousness of God, therefore, lies not in the commandment of the law, which excites fear, but in the aid afforded by the grace of Christ’ (Nat. 59. Idcirco justitia Dei per fidem Jesu Christi ad omnes perveniens qui credunt, sive Judaei sint, sive Graeci, purgatos eos a prioribus sceleribus justificat, et capaces facit gloriae Dei: non ex meritis eorum, nec pro operibus facit, sed gratis gloriam credentibus praestat.

86

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

et gr. 1) and ‘For it is impossible that the law should be fulfilled by the flesh, that is, by carnal presumption, in which the proud, who are ignorant of the righteousness of God—that is, which is of God to man, that he may be righteous—and desirous of establishing their own righteousness—as if by their own will, unassisted from above, the law could be fulfilled—are not subjected to the righteousness of God’ (C. ep. pel. 3.2). Consistent with his interpretation of the phrase as it occurs elsewhere in Paul’s letters, Augustine interprets 2 Cor. 5.21 to mean that God makes a person righteous in an inherent sense: ‘“That we might be made the righteousness of God in him”. This is not the righteousness whereby God is himself righteous, but that whereby we are made righteous by him’ (Spir. et litt. 31). Finally, according to Augustine, the two types of righteousness in Phil. 3.9, which Paul identifies as that from the Law and that from God differ insofar as the latter is bestowed by God. He writes, ‘When, indeed, it has been given, it is not called our own righteousness, but God’s; because it becomes our own only so that we have it from God’ (Gr. et pecc. or. I 14). The flawedness of Augustine’s interpretation of Paul’s concept of the righteousness of God becomes evident in his unsatisfactory explanation of how faith relates to it. With the exception of 2 Cor. 5.21, in each passage where it occurs in Paul’s letters, the term the righteousness of God is connected to faith or having faith as the condition of its appropriation. In these contexts faith or having faith in Christ stands in opposition to the Law or the works of the Law (Rom. 3.20-22), establishing one’s own righteousness (Rom. 10.3) and having one’s own righteousness from the Law (Phil. 3.9). Since he does not recognize that Paul is referring to a status of righteousness from God that faith appropriates, Augustine has no option but to substitute love for faith as the condition of eternal life. He claims to be justified in doing so because faith and love are closely associated in Gal. 5.6 ‘faith working through love’. He writes, ‘Therefore they possess not the faith by which the just man lives—the faith which works by love in such a way, that God recompenses it according to its works with eternal life. But inasmuch as we have even our good works from God, from whom likewise comes our faith and our love, therefore the selfsame great teacher of the gentiles has designated “eternal life” itself as his [God’s] gracious “gift” (Rom. 6.23)’ (Gr. et lib. arb. 18). So the righteousness of God appropriated by faith becomes the infusing of love originating in the grace of God and actualized by the Spirit. Similarly, Augustine asserts that faith in Christ confers eternal life but further clarifies that it is not so much faith in itself that does so, but the love that accompanies faith: ‘For certainly that law, although just and holy and good, could not confer eternal life on all those men of God, but the faith which is in Christ. For this faith works by love, not according to the letter which kills, but according to the Spirit which makes alive’ (C. ep. pel. 4.10). Augustine blurs the Pauline distinction between faith that



3.   Being Justified and Righteousness of God 87

receives righteousness from God and works that generate self-righteousness by means of obedience to the Law.60 John Chrysostom comes the closest to a proper understanding Paul’s use of the concept ‘the righteousness of God’. Commenting on Rom. 1.17 ‘For in it is the righteousness of God revealed’, he says that the righteousness of God consists of a gift of the ‘highest righteousness’,61 apart from all works, which results in being freed from punishment for sins (In ep. ad Rom. Hom. 2 [on Rom. 1.8]). He contrasts the righteousness of God with a person’s own righteousness: ‘And righteousness, not your own, but that of God’.62 Similarly, he interprets Paul’s statement ‘But now the righteousness of God without the Law is manifested’ in Rom. 3.20 to mean that apart from obedience to the Law it is possible to be justified and escape God’s judgment. This righteousness is qualified by the genitive ‘of God’ in order to stress that it is God’s grace that grounds his promise. He writes, ‘And this is why he does not say righteousness simply, but the righteousness of God, so by the worthiness of the person displaying the greater degree of the grace, and the possibility of the promise’ (In ep. ad Rom. Hom. 7 [on Rom. 3.9-18]).63 Along the same lines, in contrast to self-righteousness that comes from obedience to the Law, Chrysostom explains that the righteousness of God ‘comes entirely from the grace from above, and because men are justified in this case, not by labours, but by the gift of God’ (In ep. ad Rom. Hom. 17 [on Rom. 10.1]).64 The same point is made in his exegesis of Phil. 3.9: the righteousness that Paul possesses comes from grace and not from ‘labour and toil’; it is said to be a gift and to be given by God (In ep. ad Phil. Hom. 11 [on 3.7-10]). To have this righteousness is semantically equivalent to being saved by grace. Even though he lacks precision in his exegesis, it is clear that for Chrysostom the righteousness of God is a status possessed by human beings that originates in God’s grace. Finally in his commentary on 2 Cor. 5.21, he contrasts being justified by works, which requires perfection, with being justified by grace, which is the free gift of God (In ep. ad 1 et 2 Cor. Hom.). The latter is said to be the meaning of the righteousness 60. Much later Abelard has an even greater misunderstanding of the Pauline concept of ‘the righteousness of God’. In Rom. 1.17, he takes the term to mean God’s retributive justice, whereas in its other two occurrences in Rom. 3:21 and 10.3, the righteousness of God is what God requires of a human in order to be justified, namely love (charitas). Love is natural law as opposed to the ritual laws (‘corporeal observances’) found in the Old Testament (Comm. epist. rom.). 61. th_n a)nwta&tw dikaiosu&nhn. 62. kai_ dikaiosu&nhn ou) sh_n, a)lla_ qeou~. 63. Dia_ tou~to ou0x a(plw~j ei{pe, Dikaiosu&nh, a)lla_, Dikaiosu&nh qeou~, a)po_ th~j a)ci/aj tou~ prosw&pou kai_ mei/zona dei/caj th_n dwrea_n kai_ dunath_n th_n u(po&sxesin. 64. dia_ to_ o(lo&klhron au)th_n e0k th~j a!nwqen ei{nai xa&ritoj, kai_ ou)xi ponoi~j, a)lla_ qeou~ dikaiou~sqai dwrea~|.

88

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

of God, and is the opposite of what he calls ‘a righteousness of the law and of works’65 He adds that, in being justified by grace, ‘all sin is done away’, which seems to mean that all sins are forgiven.66 Similar to Chrysostom, Basil asserts in an exegesis of Phil. 3.10 found in his Homily on Humility that Christians can only glorify in Christ because it is only by faith in Christ that a human being is righteous (De humil. 3).67 This is what Paul means when he refers to the righteousness of God. 4. More on the Righteousness of God a. Imputed Righteousness A point of disagreement between Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians has been over the issue of whether it is proper to speak of the imputation of the righteousness of God to human beings on the basis of faith, which is expressed by the concise theological formula iustitia imputa.68 To impute righteousness is to bestow the status of being righteous on a human being who does not have such a status per se, by means of doing the works of the Law. This is made possible by the suffering and death of Christ. In the contexts in which it occurs in Paul’s letters, the righteousness of God is not said to be imputed by God to a human being. Rather it is revealed (Rom. 1.16-17) and manifested (Rom. 3.21-23), both of which mean that it has become a historical possibility. Paul also speaks about having (e1xwn) a righteousness from God on the basis of faith (Phil. 3.9). It could be argued, however, that having a righteousness from God is the semantic equivalent of the biblical phrase ‘is reckoned righteousness’ or ‘is reckoned for righteousness’69 found in Paul’s exposition of Gen. 15.6 in Romans 4.70 If so, then on the assumption that the Latin imputare (or reputare) is equivalent 65. no&mou kai_ e1rgwn dikaiosu&nh. 66. e1nqa pa~sa a(marti/a h)fa/istai. 67. o(te mh&te e0pi\ dikaiosu&nh| tij e0pai&retai th~| e9autou~, a)ll’ e1gnw me\n e0ndeh~ o!nta e9auto_n dikaiosu&nhj a)lhqou~j, pi/stei de\ mo&nh| th~| ei0j Xristo_n dedikai&wme/non. 68. James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1862), pp. 113-24. 69. ‘His faith is reckoned as righteousness’ (logi/zetai h( pi/stij au)tou~ ei)j dikaiosu&nhn) (Rom. 4.5); ‘To whom God reckons righteousness apart from works’ (w{| o( qeo_j logi/zetai dikaiosu&nhn xwri_j e1rgwn) (4.6); Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness (e0logi/sqh tw~| 0Abraa_m h( pi/stij ei)j dikaiosu&nhn) (4.9); ‘How was it reckoned?’ (pw~j ou{n e0logi/sqh;) (4.10); ‘In order that righteousness might be reckoned to them’ (ei)j to_ logisqh~nai au)toi~j dikaiosu&nhn) (4.11). 70. Paul cites lxx Gen 15.6 kai_ e0pi/steusen Abram tw~| qew~|, kai_ e0logi/sqh au)tw~| ei)j dikaiosu&nhn (‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’) in Gal. 3.6 and Rom. 4.3, 22. The lxx kai_ e0logi/sqh au)tw~| ei)j dikaiosu&nhn is a translation of Gen. 15.6: hqdc wl hb#$xyw.



3.   Being Justified and Righteousness of God 89

in meaning to the Greek logi/zomai (ei)j)71, then it is a legitimate extension of the biblical data to assert that a human being has a righteousness from God insofar as it has been imputed to him.72 Other terms that are sometimes used to describe what Paul means by the imputation of the righteousness of God is alien righteousness (iustitia aliena) in the sense of being from a source other than oneself and external righteousness (iustitia externa) meaning from without in the sense of being independent of works.73 It is also sometimes described as a righteousness that is ‘outside of us’ (extra nos). Another way of expressing it is to say that it is a passive righteousness (iustitia passiva).74 Such phrases are interpretive of the biblical data and secondary to them, but nevertheless can be said to clarify the intended meaning of the concept of the imputation of the righteousness of God.75 Roman Catholic theologians often object that the term ‘imputation’ implies extrinsicality and denies that the righteousness of God is a power intrinsic to a human being enabling him to be actually righteous. There are exceptions to this, like Dominicus a Soto, who holds to the imputation of Christ’s inherent righteousness, which is appropriated by a faith working by 71. And the Hebrew b#$x. 72. Calvin, Instit., bk 3, chap. 11. 19. George Stanley Faber identifies three types of righteousness (The Primitive Doctrine of Justification Investigated [London: Seeley & Burnside, 1837], p. 17: (1) ‘Forensic righteousness of justification: a righteousness reputatively made his, through faith, and on account of the perfect meritoriousness of Christ’; (2) ‘Inherent righteousness of sanctification: a righteousness infused into him by the Holy Spirit after he has been justified’; (3) ‘Complete righteousness of glorification: a righteousness acquired by him, when his corruptible puts on incorruption, and when his mortal puts on immortality’. 73. Luther writes in his scholion on Rom. 1.1 in his Römervorlesung, ‘Deus enim nos non per domesticam, sed per extraneam iustitiam et sapientiam vult saluare, non que veniat et nascatur ex nobis, Sed que aliunde veniat in nos, non que in terra nostra oritur, sed que de celo venit. Igitur omnino Externa et aliena Iustitia oportet erudiri. Quare primum oportet propriam et domesticam evelli’ (WA, 56.158.10-14). 74. See Luther’s interpretation in his Galatians Commentary (1535) WA, 40/1 41.1518). Luther distinguishes the righteousness of Law and the earthly and active righteousness from the heavenly and passive and Christian righteousness, which he also calls Christian righteousness (iustitia Christiana) (WA, 40/1 46.27-29; 48.31). 75. William Forbes, A Fair and Calm Consideration of the Modern Controversy concerning Justification (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1850), p. 113. John Owen uses the notion of Christ and believers as one mystical body to explain how imputation is possible, but this exceeds scripture; he calls it ‘an immediate foundation of the imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ unto us’ (The Doctrine of Justification by Faith though the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ; Explained, Confirmed, and Vindicated in The Works of John Owen, vol. 5 [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1862], p. 218). He answers objections to imputation from opponents of the doctrine by making the distinction between righteousness being formally inherent in Christ but materially imputed to us, actively Christ’s but passively ours.

90

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

love (De natura et gratia, lib. 2, cap. 20). Most defenders of the Council of Trent, however, resist the idea of imputed righteousness. Their preference is to use the phrase infused righteousness (iustitia infusa) or inherent righteousness (iustitia inhaerens). Bellarmine, for example, argues that what Paul means to contrast in Phil. 3.9 is works done without faith, which did not make him truly righteous before God, and works done in faith, which do (De Justificatione, lib. 1, cap. 19; see lib. 2, cap. 7, 10, 11).76 This hermeneutic is applied to other passages from Paul’s letter in which he contrasts righteousness by faith and that by works. To interpret the righteousness of God as infused or inherent rather than imputed, however, obscures Paul’s meaning, since for him the righteousness of God is a status conferred upon a human on the basis of faith in Christ. He does not intend to contrast two types of righteousness that come from the Law, one without divine assistance and the other with it, as some Roman Catholic exegetes claim, because both types of righteousness would still be from the Law. Rather, his contrast is with respect to the two sources of righteousness, one that comes from doing the Law, which could be called, with no negative connotations, selfrighteousness, and the other from God that is received by faith. On Roman Catholic interpretation, Paul’s use of faith would have to be understood as a synecdoche, including within itself other virtues, such as love. Such an interpretation of faith actually subverts Paul’s intention since in this context faith denotes the appropriation of a righteousness from God made possible by Christ’s suffering and death. It is often asserted by Roman Catholic theologians that imputed righteousness is a ‘legal fiction’ because it does not make a person actually righteous; for this reason, it would be unjust for God to impute the status of being righteous to the unrighteous. But, as Protestant theologians have frequently pointed out, this is a confusion of the grace of justification with the grace of renovation or sanctification.77 Turretin insightfully remarks that, even though the imputation of righteousness in Romans 4 is judicial and relative, it is no mere fiction since it is just as real as an infused righteousness but real in a different way.78 5. Identification of Righteousness of God with the Righteousness of Christ In an attempt to systematize further the biblical data, some Protestant theologians identify the righteousness of God to which Paul refers several times 76. See George Bull’s interpretation of Phil. 3.8-9 and other Pauline texts (Harmonia Apostolica [Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1842], chap. xii). 77. Johann Gerhard, Loci theologici, locus decimus sextus, 1.25: gratia justificationis et gratia renovationis. 78. Cum sit res non minus ralis in suo ordine, scilicet juridico et forensic, quam infusion in genere morali seu physico (Francis Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae II, loc. decimus sextus, III.VIII). See Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, pp. 314-38.



3.   Being Justified and Righteousness of God 91

in his letters with ‘the righteousness of Christ’ (iustitia Christi). The implicit claim is that, even though this latter term does not occur in the New Testament with this sense, the concept expressed by the term does.79 The genitive phrase ‘the righteousness of Christ’ is intended as a subjective genitive referring to Christ’s own righteousness, being the meritorious status resulting from his obedience.80 According to this view, the term the righteousness of God is actually a short form for Christ’s own righteousness, which God imputes to human beings on the condition of faith.81 The two terms can be used interchangeably. On this interpretation, the imputation of the righteousness of God is the transfer of Christ’s status of being righteous to human beings. There are a few references in the early period of Christian theology to the fact that human beings can be righteous because of the righteousness of Christ, but there is no explicit identification of it with the righteousness of God that is imputed to human beings.82 It is not until the rise 79. 2 Pet. 1.1 contains the phrase ‘in the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ’, but does not speak about its imputation to human beings. Likewise, Paul refers to Christ as becoming righteousness for us but does not explain how (1 Cor. 1.30). Faber distinguishes the doctrine of the ‘forensic imputation of Christ’s perfection righteousness’ from what he calls the rationale of the doctrine, which is its explicit statement using terminology found implicitly in scripture (Primitive Doctrine of Justification, pp. 1-24 [19-20]). 80. M. Chemnitz, Examen Decretorum Concilii Tridentini, locus viii (De justificatione); Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae II, loc. decimus sextus, 3. 81. See Luther’s remark in his 1535 Galatians Commentary, that Christ’s righteousness is transferred from him to us (WA, 40/1 454.26-455), which he calls a feliciter commutans (WA, 40/1 443.23). John Davenant writes, ‘God…willed that that obedience and righteousness, which Christ performed in our flesh, should become ours by imputation’ (Treatise on Justification [2 vols.; London: Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1844], I, p. 240). 82. In Epistle of Diognetus, Christ’s righteousness is said to cover human sin; the author writes, ‘For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than his righteousness?’ (ti/ ga_r a!llo ta_j a(marti/aj h(mw~n h)dunh&qh kalu&yai h2 e0kei/nou dikaiosu&nh;) (9.2). There is an exchange between sinners and Christ, implying a transfer of status from Christ to the sinner: ‘O sweet exchange’ (w@ glukei/aj a)ntallagh~j) (9.3). Against the Arians, Athanasius states that the purpose of the exaltation of Christ to heaven described in Phil. 2.6 was ultimately for the exaltation of human beings. He writes, ‘But that he may become righteousness for us, and we may be exalted in him’ (a)ll’ i3na au)to_j me\n u(pe\r h(mw~n dikaiosu&nh ge/nhtai) (Ar. 1.41). Although not completely clear, the meaning may be that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to human beings. Reflecting upon Jn 5.24 ‘He who hears my words, and believes him that sent me, has everlasting life, and does not comes into judgment’, Cyril of Jerusalem states that on the condition of faith there is a bestowal of righteousness from Christ to human beings. He writes, ‘For the righteous were many years in pleasing him: but what they succeeded in gaining by many years of well-pleasing, this Jesus now bestows on you in a single hour’ (tou~to soi_ nu~n 0Ihsouj dia_ mia~j w#raj xari/zetai) (Cat. lect. 5.10). He uses the example of the thief on the cross to illustrate and support this theological assertion.

92

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

of Protestant theology that this view comes to prominence, functioning as a rationale for its view of justification.83 The righteousness of Christ is said to be ‘his whole obedience unto God’, inclusive of his obedience unto to death, or his willing acceptance of the penal sanction of the Law, as well as his lifetime of obedience to the Law.84 The former is sometimes known as Christ’s passive obedience, whereas the latter is his active obedience.85 A distinction is sometimes made between the satisfaction effected by Christ’s passive obedience by which he bears the penalty of sins in his suffering and death, resulting in the forgiveness of past sins, and the imputation of his active obedience, his lifetime of perfect obedience to the Law, resulting in adoption and having the right to eternal life. Simply being forgiven of past sins does not qualify a person for eternal life; rather it only makes a person not guilty of sin: being innocent is not the same as being righteous. What is required in addition is the imputation of the perfect righteousness that can only be provided by Christ, the righteousness of Christ. The difference between atoning and justifying is that between being forgiven and being righteous by Christ’s righteousness. In response to Roman Catholicism, John Cox, for instance, classifies the work of Christ as threefold: ‘He 83. Philip Melanchthon writes, ‘Und wird dir des Herrn Christi gerechtigkeit zu gerechnet’ (Loci Communes [1555]; Corp Reform., 22.322-72, 327). The Konkordienformel states that ‘Gott…schenket und rechnet uns zu die Gerechtigkeit des Gehorsams Christi, um welcher Gerechtigkeit willen wir bei Gott zu Gnaden angenommen und für gerecht gehalten warden’ (3.2). Likewise the Westminster Confession states that God justifies believers ‘by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them’ (11.1). English theologian William Pemble makes the distinction between righteousness that is ‘legall and of works’, achieved by obedience and punishment or satisfaction, and that which is ‘evangelicall and of faithe, which is such a conformity to God’s Law as is not inherent in our own persons; but being in another is imputed unto us and reckoned’. He explains further: ‘The righteousness of the Law, and of the Gospell, are not two severall kinds; but the same in regard as the matter and substance thereof: only they differ in the matter and subiect of application. The righteousnesse of works is that of holinesse and obedience, which is inherent in our owne persons and performed by our selves: the righteousnesse of Faith is the same holinesse and obedience inherent in the person of Christ and performed by him; but imbraced by our faith, and accepted by God, as done in our steed, and done for our benefit’ (Vindiciae Fidei or A Treatise of Justification by Faith, pp. 3-4). While holding that true faith is informed by love, Cardinal Contarini nevertheless asserts that the righteousness of Christ is given and imputed to human beings: ‘Justitia Christi nobis donata est vera et perfecta iustitia’ (Gasparo Contrarini, ‘De Justificatione’, in Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera [Paris: Nivellium, 1571], p. 640). 84. Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, chap. 9. 85. Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, pp. 301-307; George Downame, A Treatise of Justification (London: Bourne, 1633), pp. 18-19, 21, 24-39; John Edmund Cox, Protestantism Contrasted with Romanism (2 vols.; London: Longman et al., 1852), I, pp. 340-89. A.A. Hodge, The Atonement (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1867), pp. 248-64.



3.   Being Justified and Righteousness of God 93

atones—justifies—and sanctifies: He atones by His Sacrifice, justifies by His Obedience, sanctifies by His Spirit. He makes us innocent, righteous, and holy’.86 Often it is said that, by virtue of his union with Christ, a believer’s sins becomes Christ’s and Christ’s righteousness becomes his. Synonyms for ‘the righteousness of Christ’ are ‘the obedience of Christ’ and ‘the merit / merits of Christ’ (meritum/merita Christi).87 Similarly, the popular theological slogan ‘Christ is our righteousness’, based on 1 Cor. 1.30, is used with the meaning that the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to believers.88 Christ’s active and passive obedience is said to be the meritorious cause of justification. An attempt to provide a warrant for the use of the term the righteousness of Christ is made by arguing that, insofar Christ is God, the righteousness of God is that of Christ, that they are convertible terms.89 George Downame writes, ‘And it is therefore called the righteousness of God, because it is the righteousnesse of that person, who is God, and therefore is not our own righteousnesse’.90 Similarly, Jer. 23.6 ‘And this is his name by which he will be called, “The Lord our righteousness”’ is frequently cited as support for the identifying the righteousness of God with that of Christ. This identification is facilitated by the fact that ku&rioj in the lxx and dominus in the Latin Bible are used in the Old Testament of Yhwh and in the New Testament of Christ.91 The phrase ‘righteousness of the Lord’ refers to Yhwh’s covenantal faithfulness to Israel but can further denote the righteousness of Christ imputed to human beings. It is safe to say, however, that neither argument is compelling. Even though the righteousness of God is causally tied to Christ’s own righteousness, resulting from his suffering and death, it is an invalid extrapolation to affirm that the two can be identified.92 Even less is it permissible to make the distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ.93 Opponents of this theological teaching correctly point 86. Cox, Protestantism Contrasted with Romanism, I, p. 346. 87. Davenant uses the phrase ‘imputed merits of Christ’ (Treatise on Justification, p. 167). 88. See Luther’s exegesis in WA, 40/1 672.33; 47.19-20. In his Von der Freiheit eines Christenmeschen, he explains that a Christian is free from sin, death and hell by virtue of receiving Christ’s own righteousness (WA 7. 25.28-26.12; see 29.22-27). 89. Downame, A Treatise of Justification, p. 3. 90. Downame, A Treatise of Justification, p. 17. Downame refers to the righteousness of Christ not only as the merit of justification but also the matter of it, in the quasiphysical sense that it is what God imputes to those who receive it by faith. 91. A. Pighius, Controversiarum, De fide et justification, p. 45. 92. Bellarmine is correct that nowhere is scripture is it said Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us (De justificatione, lib. 2, cap. 7). 93. Albrecht Ritschl, A Critical History of Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation (Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas, 1872), pp. 234-319.

94

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

out that the New Testament knows nothing of a twofold obedience of Christ with discrete effects; rather it is Christ’s suffering and death considered as a single event that is identified as soteriologically effective, his so-called passive obedience.94 If it is to be used at all, the phrase ‘the merit of Christ’ can refer to the effectiveness of Christ’s death in making forgiveness possible or, in other words, the imputation of the righteousness of God. 6. Righteousness of God as Formal Cause Christian theologians sometimes identify the righteousness of God as the formal cause of justification, one of several types of soteriological causes. Simply put, the formal cause of justification is that on account of which a person can be said to be righteous before God.95 The use of the concept of the formal cause of justification exceeds the biblical data and tends to prejudice the investigation towards the Roman Catholic view, insofar as a formal cause is usually understood as being inherent in a thing and not external to it.96 According to the Council of Trent, ‘the alone formal cause 94. Bellarmine, De Justificatione lib. 2, cap. 5: ‘Denique, nihil frequentibus omnis Scriptura testator, quam Christi passionem et mortem, plenam, atque perfectam satisfactionem fuisse pro peccati’. See also Johannes Piscator, whose views Gerhard seeks to refute (Loci theologici, locus decimus sextus, 1.55-58). On this topic see Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae, I.XXX.xiv and Conradus Vorstius, Antibellarminus contractus, tom. 4 (608); William Sherlock, A Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ (London: M. Clark, 3rd edn, 1678); William Symington, On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: William Whyte & Co., 2nd edn, 1834), pp. 199-213. John Murray in a forced manner claims that Christ’s obedience is an inclusive rubric that may be used in order to include all of Christ’s soteriological functions, such as sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption (Redemption Accomplished and Applied [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955], pp. 19-50). He then distinguishes between the active and passive obedience of Christ. He writes, ‘The real use and purpose of the formula is to emphasize the two distinct aspects of our Lord’s vicarious obedience’ (p. 21). See also Forbes, A Fair and Calm Consideration of the Modern Controversy concerning Justification, pp. 103-15; William Thomson, The Atoning Work of Christ (London: Longman et al., 1853), pp. 136-37. 95. Bellarmine, De Justificatione lib. 2, cap. 1: ‘propter quam homo dicitur iustus coram Deo’. Or as Davenant expresses it in a more evangelical manner, ‘By the formal cause of our justification, we understand nothing else than that by which we stand, in the sight of God, freed from condemnation, innocent, and graciously accepted unto eternal life’ and ‘Now as to a formal cause, it is well known, that this is called the form by which a thing is what it is’ (Treatise on Justification, pp. 211, 232). John Henry Newman points out that, since its realization has causal antecedents, the formal cause is ‘the last in the series by which a thing is brought to be’ (Lectures on Justification [London: J., D. & F. Rivington, 1838], p. 391). 96. Such an approach has its origins in Aristotelian epistemology, according to which to know something ‘scientifically’ is to know its four causes.



3.   Being Justified and Righteousness of God 95

is the righteousness of God, not that whereby he himself is righteous, but that whereby he makes us righteous, that is to say, that with which we being endowed by him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, righteous, receiving righteousness within us: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and love’ (Sess. 6, cap. 7).97 In refutation of the Protestant interpretation, the formulators of the Tridentine canons and decrees insist that righteousness is not merely imputed to a person, but that he or she is truly righteous, having righteousness within, resulting from the love of God being infused by means of the Holy Spirit.98 In other words, as a formal cause, the righteousness of God is first and foremost inherent and not imputed, being connected to the infusion of the Spirit and tied to the instrumental cause of baptism.99 In supporting the Tridentine view, Bellarmine marshals what he considers to be scriptural evidence for the inherent-righteousness view, repeatedly claiming that when scripture refers to being justified what is meant is to be made righteous and not simply to be pronounced righteous without renovation by means of the love of God effused by the Spirit.100 He argues that there is a difference between the formal cause of justification, which is inherent righteousness and its meritorious cause, which is the merit of Christ. Likewise he claims that when scripture states that a person is justified through Christ, as in Paul’s statement in Acts 13.38-39, what is meant is that Christ’s righteousness is the efficient cause of justification. This is not to deny, however, the existence of its formal cause of infused righteousness, or renovation. The two causes are both necessary and cannot be collapsed into one.101 He also 97. Demum unica formalis causa est ‘justitia Dei, non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit’, qua videlicet ab eo donati renovamur spiritu mentis nostræ, et non modo reputamur, sed vere justi nominamur et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipients. In spite of his belief that justification incudes forgiveness, Newman holds that relative to the past justification is forgiveness of sins, but relative to the present and future it is renewal, which is its formal cause (Lectures on Justification, pp. 32-65). 98. See the discussion in Forbes, A Fair and Calm Consideration of the Modern Controversy concerning Justification, pp. 93-223. 99. Bellarmine also distinguishes between the formal cause of justification in habitu and in actu. The latter is identical to the righteous acts that issue from the infused habit (De Justificatione, lib. 1, cap. 2). 100. De Justificatione lib. 2, cap 1-7. See Joseph Poehle, Grace: Actual and Habitual (St. Louis: Becktold, 1914), pp. 271-436. Poehle dislikes the Protestant catch-phrase ‘iustitia Christi extra nos’ found in the Apologia written in defense of the Augsburg Confession and in the Lutheran Formula of Concord (310). See William Ames, Bellarminus enervatus. lib. 7 De Iustificatione, cap. 1, 686-709. 101. ‘Nam per Christum iustificamur, ut per caussan effiecentem, per virtutem et qualitatem infusam, ut per caussam formalem’ (2.12).

96

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

rejects the compromise position represented by Bucer and Pighius that there are two formal causes of justification, imputed and inherent righteousness. As already indicated, it is sometimes claimed by traditional Roman Catholic theologians that imputed righteousness is nothing more than a legal fiction. Of course, Protestant theologians do not deny the reality of inherent righteousness but differentiate it from imputed righteousness. Hooker distinguishes the righteousness of justification from the righteousness of sanctification. He writes, ‘We have already shewed, that there be two types of Christian righteousness: the one without us, which we have by imputation; the other in us, which consisteth of faith, hope, and charity, and other Christian virtues’.102 Protestant theologians likewise sometimes find it useful to distinguish the various soteriological causes, including the formal cause. Luther asserts that faith is formal righteousness (formalis iustitia), by which is meant the formal cause of justification.103 Most other Protestant theologians, however, agree with their Roman Catholic counterparts that the formal cause of justification is the righteousness of God, but define the righteousness of God as imputed and not inherent.104 Gerhard modifies Luther’s view, replacing faith as formal cause with forgiveness of sins and imputed righteousness, which are apprehended by faith.105 Turretin distinguishes two ways in which the righteousness of Christ can be the formal cause of justification, either as inherently or by imputation.106 Moreover, it is argued that, although normally it is intrinsic to it, a formal cause can be extrinsic to that of which it is a form.107 In such instances, as Davenant explains, the formal cause is passively and extrinsically received.108 This distinction between active 102. Richard Hooker, ‘A Discourse of Justification’ in Works of Mr. Richard Hooker (3 vols.; London: W. Clarke et al., 1821), chap. 21 (353). See Downame, A Treatise of Justification, pp. 21, 33, 167. Downame holds that the formal cause of justification is imputation of Christ’s righteousness; he bases this view on Rom. 5.19, which does not say as much as he thinks that it does. 103. In his Galatians Commentary on Gal. 2.16 and 3.6 (WA, 40/1 229, 18-19; 232, 23-25; 364, 11-12). 104. See Downame, A Treatise of Justification, pp. 8-23; 261-311. He holds that the material cause is the righteousness of God or Christ and the formal cause is its imputation. 105. Gerhard, Loci theologici, locus decimus sextus, 1.198, 199. 106. Turretin writes, ‘Non, An Justitia Christi sit nostra formalis et inhaerens subjective iustitia; Sed, An sit Iustitia nostra realis et sifficens imputative, per quam, si non sumus formaliter iusti iustitia inhaerente, sumus tmaen formaliter iustificati, per illius imputationem, ut praeter eam nulla alia sit material iustitiae nostrae coram Deo?’ (Institutio Theologiae Elencticae II, loc. decimus sextus, 3.12). 107. Davenant, Treatise on Justification, pp. 211-53. 108. Davenant explains, ‘But because man is said to be justified in the passive term (to speak grammatically), it is not absolutely necessary that this term be derived from an



3.   Being Justified and Righteousness of God 97

and passive predication is intended to counter the argument that a formal cause must be inherent because a person cannot be something by someone else’s form, by which is meant an extrinsic form. The possibility of the passive predication of righteousness means that the form is not necessarily be an inherent form. Since the concept of formal cause is not a biblical term and its use tends to obscure Paul`s teaching about imputed righteousness it would be better not to refer to the righteousness of God as the formal cause of justification, in spite of the long history of doing so.

inherent form, or that it should imply an inherent form. For such passive term regard the inhering form, as when we say the wall is whitewashed; sometimes not, as when we say that a man is loved, honoured, condemned, absolved: for all these things are said truly of him in whom there is not found the inhering form, which may be the foundation of such terms’ (Treatise on Justification, p. 232).

Chapter 4

Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death There are several other ways in which the New Testament expresses how Christ’s suffering and death has soteriological benefit for human beings. Each of these is further developed by the early church fathers. 1. Christ’s Death for Others In the New Testament, Christ’s death is sometimes said to be for others, but without specifying in which sense this is true. In the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks about his death as voluntary and for others. He says, ‘Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends’ (Jn 15.13). He freely chooses to die for his disciples as an act of love, and his death will benefit them in some way. Jesus also compares his death to a seed that falls to the ground and dies, thereby producing much grain. He says, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit’ (Jn 12.24). The point of the metaphor is that Jesus’ death will bring soteriological benefit to human beings; without his death there would be no such benefit.1 In addition, Jesus explains that metaphorically he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep, intimating that his death is for others. In Jn 10.11 he says, ‘I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep’, and in 10.15 he repeats, ‘I lay down my life for the sheep’ (see 10.17, 28). By the use of the preposition u(pe/r with the genitive, Paul communicates that Christ’s death is for others.2 He writes, ‘For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly (u(pe\r a)sebw~n)’ and two verses later, ‘But God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were

1. See Jn 18.14 ‘Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die for the people (u9pe\r tou~ laou~)’. 2. See TDNT 8.509. The preposition u(pe/r with the genitive is used to describe the vicarious deaths of the Maccabean martyrs in 2 Macc. 7.9; 8.21; 4 Macc. 1.8, 10; Josephus, Ant. 13.5-6.



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 99

yet sinners, Christ died for us (u(pe\r h(mw~n)’ (Rom. 5.6, 8).3 In his view, human beings are weak, which is synonymous with being ungodly and sinners, and therefore can do nothing of soteriological benefit for themselves. Christ’s death, which occurs at the appointed time in salvation-history (see 3.26), is for human beings and for this reason is a demonstration of God’s love. Arguing from minor to major, he points out that Christ’s willingness to die for the ungodly and sinners is all the more remarkable, when one considers that a human being would scarcely be willing to die for a righteous person, let alone a sinful one (Rom. 5.7). Paul also makes passing reference to the fact that Christ died on behalf of others using the preposition u(pe&r + genitive in Rom. 14.15 (‘for whom Christ died’); 2 Cor. 5.14 (‘one died for all’), 15.15 (‘he died for all’); and 1 Thess. 5.10 ‘who died for us’). In a variation of this, he writes that Christ ‘was crucified for you’ (1 Cor. 1.13). Likewise, Paul says that Christ loved the church and ‘gave himself up for her (u(pe\r au)th~j)’ (Eph. 5.25). He also writes, ‘The son of God, who loved me and delivered himself up for me (u(pe\r e0mou~)’ (Gal. 2.20). Possibly bearing the influence of lxx Isa. 53.5, 12, the expression ‘to deliver oneself up’ (parado&ntoj e9auto_n) is to submit to being killed. Christ’s act is an expression of love and is for the benefit of Paul and others. Finally, Paul asserts, ‘God did not spare his own son, but delivered him up for us all (u(pe\r h(mw~n pa&ntwn)’ (Rom. 8.32). Alluding to a messianic interpretation of Ps. 110.1, he adds that, insofar as he is at the right hand of God, Christ intercedes for us with God (8.34).4 Paul also uses the preposition dia& with the genitive for the same purpose. He explains to the Corinthians that ‘our Lord Jesus Christ, though he was rich, yet for you (di’ u(ma~j) he became poor, in order that you through his poverty might become rich’ (2 Cor. 8.9). By the Corinthians’ becoming rich, Paul is referring to the soteriological benefit that they receive from Christ, which he expresses in different ways in his letters. Conversely, by Christ’s becoming poor Paul is referring to his historical appearance and death.5 In continuity with the New Testament, early Christian theologians make similar general and imprecise statements about Christ dying for human beings. Ignatius describes how Christ suffered every type of torment ‘for us’ (di’ h(ma~j), but without specifying the purpose of this suffering (IgnPol 3.2). He also writes that Christ ‘died for us’ (IgnRom 6.1: u(pe\r h(mw~n a)poqano&nta; IgnTrall 2.1: di’ h(ma~j a)poqano&nta) and ‘suffered 3. George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870), pp. 149-54. 4. Martin Hengel, The Atonement (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 34-39. 5. See Phil. 2.7-8: ‘But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross’.

100

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

for us in order that we might be saved’ (e1paqen di’ h(ma~j, i3na swqw~men) (IgnSmyr 2.1). Ignatius also asserts that Christians are restored to life by the blood of Christ (IgnEph 1.1).6 Polycarp writes that Christian martyrs loved Christ rather than the world and then under the influence of Rom. 4.25 and 5.10 affirms that Christ ‘died for us and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead’ (PolPhil 9.2).7 Like Paul (and Ignatius), he uses as synonyms the prepositions u(pe&r + genitive and dia& + accusative. In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, it is said that Christ ‘suffered for the salvation of the whole world, the faultless for sinners’, which likewise is a statement that Christ’s death was for others, in particular, for their salvation (MartPol. 17.2).8 Athanasius writes that Christ’s death on the cross was ‘for us’ (u(pe\r h(mw~n) and that the salvation of the world could not have been accomplished except through the cross (Incarn. 26). Similarly, Justin Martyr explains that the purpose of the incarnation is healing, by which he means spiritual healing: ‘He became man for our sakes, that becoming a partaker of our sufferings, he might also bring us healing’ (2 Apol. 13). Clement of Alexandria describes how Christ suffered for human beings (Dives 8). Likewise Origen states that ‘Jesus endured all things on behalf of sinners, that he might free them from sin, and convert them to righteousness’ (Con. Cels. 4.19). The connection between the cause and effect, however, is not specified. Alluding to Isa. 53.4, he also says that in dying Christ bears the sins of human beings and suffers for them (Comm. Matt. 12.29). Finally, according to Cyprian, Christ died for human beings and in particular for their sins (Ep. 58.6; Ad Fortun. 5). 2. Suffered for Sins Following an exhortation to his readers to be willing to suffer for doing what is right (3.17), the author of 1 Peter writes that Christ likewise underwent innocent suffering: ‘For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order that he might bring you to God’ (1 Pet. 3.18).9 Peter’s intention is to provide a basis for what he writes in 1 Pet. 3.17 ‘For it is better…that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong’.10 He asserts that what Christ did had for its purpose to bring his readers and by extension all human beings to God.11 To be brought to 6. a)nazwpurh&santej e0n ai#mati qeou~. 7. a)lla_ to_n u(pe\r h(mw~n a)poqano&nta di' h(ma~j u(po_ tou~ qeou~ a)nasta&nta. 8. to_n u(pe\r th~j tou~ panto_j ko&smou tw~n swzome/nwn swthri&aj paqo&nta a!mwmon u(pe\r a(martwlw~n. 9. Robert W. Dale, The Atonement (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1875), pp. 97-148. 10. Karen Jobes, First Peter (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), p. 237. 11. There is a textual variant: h(ma~j (‘us’) rather than u(ma~j (‘you’). The cognate noun



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 101

God is a soteriological expression meaning to be reconciled to God.12 What Christ did that allows human beings to be brought to God was that he ‘suffered for sins’ (peri\ a(martiw~n e1paqen).13 The meaning of this expression, unique to the New Testament,14 is that Christ died because of human sins or that human sins were the cause of his death.15 Implicit is the idea that Christ suffers in the place of those who committed those sins, which is expressed in the appositive phrase ‘the righteous for the unrighteous’ (di/ kaioj u(pe_r a)di/kwn): Christ the righteous one suffered in the place of the unrighteous. In accordance with the will of God, Christ suffered willingly on behalf of the unrighteous in order to remove the obstacle that kept them from being able to be brought to God.16 Peter also states that Christ’s suffering for sins was a one-time, unrepeatable event in history: ‘Christ also suffered for sins once for all (a#pac)’. He suffered for all sins—past, present and future. Similar to 1 Pet. 3.18, Polycarp states that Jesus Christ ‘endured to face even death for our sins’ (PolPhil 1.2).17 In his view, Christ’s suffering and death was necessitated by human sins (he uses the prepositional phrase u(pe\r a(martiw~n, however, rather than peri\ a(martiw~n). Similarly, Melito of Sardis seems to be influenced by 1 Pet. 3.18 when he writes ‘that the unjust murder of this just person took place’ (Pasch. 94).18 3. Forgiveness Causally Tied to Christ In some passages in the New Testament, Christ or Christ’s death is said to be the means by which forgiveness is possible for human beings, but without specifying the nature of the causal relationship between the two. In his address after the giving of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, Peter prosagwgh/ is used elsewhere in the New Testament with the meaning of soteriological access to God (Rom. 5.2; Eph. 2.18; 3.12). 12. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (WBC, 49; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988), pp. 201-203. 13. There are textual variants that have that Christ died rather than suffered. There is no difference in meaning, however, between the two alternatives, since Christ’s suffering was unto death. 14. The phrase peri\ a(martiw~n, however, does occur with a sacrificial sense in Heb. 5.3; 10.26 (see 1 Jn 2.2). 15. The use of the preposition peri& + genitive has the meaning ‘on account of’, or the cause of Christ’s suffering. 16. See Paul Achtemeier, First Peter : A Commentary on First Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), pp. 251-52. 17. o4j u(pe/meinen u(pe\r a(martiw~n h(mw~n e3wj qana&tou katanh~sai. 18. Stuart G. Hall, Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and Fragments. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991; Lynn H. Cohick, The Peri Pascha Attributed to Melito of Sardis: Setting, Purpose, and Sources (Brown Judaic Studies, 327; Providence: Brown University, 2000).

102

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

says to his Jewish hearers, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’ (Acts 2.38).19 The preposition ‘for’ (ei)j) signifies the purpose and goal of repentance: the forgiveness of sins. The conditions of forgiveness are repentance and being baptized ‘upon’ the name of Jesus Christ.20 (The result will also be receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.) John the Baptist proclaimed a ‘baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mk 1.4; see Acts 13.24; 18.25; 19.34). According to Peter, however, at this point in salvation-history baptism is in the name of Jesus Christ,21 which means on the authority of Jesus Christ, and having him as the content of belief and confession.22 Nothing is said about the exact relation of Jesus’ death with the possibility of forgiveness; rather, it is simply affirmed that Christ is authorized to mediate God’s forgiveness of sins. Similarly, in another speech in the Book of Acts, Peter says, ‘He [Jesus] is the one whom God exalted to his right hand as a prince and savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins’ (Acts 5.31). Interpreting Ps. 110.1 messianically, he asserts that Jesus’ resurrection is part of his exaltation to a position of supreme authority, which is expressed by the term ‘prince’ (a)rxhgo_j) (see Mk 12.35-37; Mt. 22.41-46; Lk. 20.41-44).23 Peter also calls the exalted Jesus savior (swth/r) because through him is the possibility of being saved from the consequences of final judgment by receiving the forgiveness of sins (a!fesin a(martiw~n). The phrase ‘to give repentance’ has the meaning of giving the opportunity of repentance.24 Implicitly repentance is the condition of receiving forgiveness of sins. The assumption is that this is a special salvation-historical dispensation and that forgiveness would not be available otherwise.25 Finally, in Luke’s summary of his speech to Jews in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia, Paul announces, ‘Through him [Jesus] forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through him everyone who believes is freed from all things from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses’ (Acts 19. ei)j a!fesin tw~n a(martiw~n u(mw~n 20. Heinrich A.W. Meyer, Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th edn, 1870), pp. 80-81. 21. Literally ‘upon’ (e0pi/) the name of Jesus. 22. Bruce, The Book of Acts (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), pp. 74-78; I.H. Marshall, Acts (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1980), pp. 80-81; TDNT 5.276. 23. See Acts 3.15 ‘but put to death the Prince of life (ar)xhgo_n th~j zwh~j), the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses’. See Heb. 2.10; 12.2 for another meaning of the term a)rxhgo&j, as originator and Heb. 2.10 for a)rxhgo&j and swth/r likewise occurring together. 24. Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 41-43. See Josephus, War 3.127 kai\ metanoi/aj kairo\n didou/j; Philo, Leg. all. 3.106 di/dwsi xro&non ei)j meta&noian. 25. Marshall, Acts, p. 120.



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 103

13.38-39). According to him, forgiveness of sins (a!fesij a(martiw~n) is now available universally through Jesus, which is necessary because his Jewish audience and even God-fearing gentiles all stand condemned under the Law, not being able to make themselves righteous by obeying its stipulations.26 Paul assumes that the Torah makes no provision for the forgiveness for every type of sin.27 The possibility of forgiveness through Christ is extended to gentiles also. After his resurrection, Jesus tells his disciples that ‘repentance and the forgiveness of sins’ is to be proclaimed on his authority (‘in his name’) not just to Jews but to all the nations also (Lk. 24.46-47). Likewise, Peter tells Cornelius, the Roman centurion, ‘Him all the prophets bear witness that through his name everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins’ (Acts 10.43).28 He connects the possibility of forgiveness to believing in Jesus, which obviously includes believing that Jesus is the mediator of divine forgiveness. It is through his name that forgiveness is possible for Jews and now gentiles, which is to say on his authority. By the prophets who testify to this fact is meant the Old Testament texts that Peter and others cite as predictive and interpretive of the Messiah’s death. Finally, Paul writes to the Ephesian Christians that God has forgiven them in Christ, by which he means because of Christ (Eph. 4.32).29 Being forgiven of sins is also metaphorically called being cleansed from sin and this is causally connected to Christ’s death: ‘And the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin’ (1 Jn 1.7).30 Sin is being compared to ritual impurity, which in the Torah is cleansed by various means, including animal sacrifices, thereby allowing a person to participate in the Temple cult. Sin is defiling like ritual impurity, but in a moral sense. The same metaphor is used in 2 Pet. 1.9 ‘purification from his former sins’.31 In agreement with the New Testament, the idea that Christ suffers and dies in order to make forgiveness possible occurs in the writings of the early church fathers, sometimes in new theological contexts. The Shepherd of Hermas states that through his suffering and work the son cleansed human sins: ‘He himself cleansed their sins’ (Sim. 5.6.2). This statement may be influenced by 1 Jn 1.7 ‘the blood of Jesus his son cleanses us from all sin’.32 26. See the use of the phrase a!fesij a(martiw~n in Col. 1.14 and the similar phrase a!fesij tw~n paraptwma&twn in Eph. 1.7. 27. Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement, pp. 95-100; Bruce, Acts, pp. 278-79; Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, p. 106. 28. a!fesin a(martiw~n labei~n dia_ tou~ o)no&matoj au)tou~ to_n pisteu&onta ei)j au)to&n. 29. kai\ o( qeo_j e0n Xristw~| e0xari/sato u(mi=n. 30. kai\ to_ ai[ma 0Ihsou~ tou~ ui9ou~ au)tou~ kaqari/zei h(ma~j pa&shj a(marti/aj. 31. tou~ kaqarismou~ tw~n pa&lai au)tou~ a(martiw~n. 32. kai_ au)to_j ta_j a(marti/aj au)tw~n a0kaqa&rise.

104

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Against Docetism, Ignatius insists that ‘to believe in the blood of Christ’ is central to Christian teaching, by which he means believing that Christ truly came in the flesh and died (IgnSmyrn 6.1).33 This is because Christ’s physical suffering is the means by which human beings are saved. He explains, ‘He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved’ (2.1).34 By the term ‘being saved’, he no doubt is referring to being saved from the consequences of God’s judgment, which is only possible through forgiveness of sins. Ignatius reproaches the Docetists for abstaining from the Eucharist since they do not believe that it is the flesh of Christ. He explains that such a view is deplorable because it implies that Jesus Christ did not suffer in his flesh for our sins (7.1).35 In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, it is said about Christ that he ‘suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world—the blameless one for sinners’ (MartPol. 17.2).36 Again the concept of being saved implies forgiveness. In an interpretation of Gen. 49.10-11, Justin Martyr states that, contrary to the traditional Jewish interpretation, the second half of the messianic prophecy speaks about the death of the Messiah that makes possible the cleansing of sin.37 He writes, ‘And after this he was crucified, that the rest of the prophecy might be fulfilled. For this “washing his robe in the blood of the grape” was predictive of the passion he was to endure, cleansing by his blood those who believe on him’ (1 Apol. 32). Justin understands wine, metaphorically described as ‘the blood of the grape’, to refer to Jesus’ own blood shed during his passion, which attests to the incarnation of the Word through a virgin birth: ‘He who should appear would have blood, though not of the seed of man, but of the power of God’. He further argues that the term ‘his robes’ allegorically refers to ‘those men who believe in him in whom abides the seed of God, the Word’.38 The second part of the messianic prophecy foretells how those who believe in Jesus, in whom the seed of God abides, will be cleansed because of the blood of Jesus, by which is meant cleansed from sins. To be cleansed (from sins) is synonymous with being forgiven. Justin’s allegorical interpretation may be somewhat forced, 33. pisteu&ein ei)j to_ ai{ma xristou~. 34. tau~ta ga_r pa&nta e1paqen di' h(ma~j, i3na swqw~men. 35. u(pe\r tw~n a(martiw~n h(mw~n. 36. to_n u(pe\r th~j tou~ panto_j ko&smou tw~n swzome/nwn swthri/aj paqo&nta a!mwmon u(pe\r a(martwlw~n. 37. Although not in the New Testament, Gen. 49.10-11 is interpreted messianically in 4Q252 (4QpGen [Genesis Pesher]) and in T. Judah 22, which in its present form is Christian composition. Likewise in Targum Onkelos and Ps. Jonathan the term hly#$ in Gen. 49.10 is interpreted as a name for the royal Messiah. Targum Onkelos, for example, translates the text as ‘Until the Messiah comes to whom the kingdom belongs’. 38. See 1 Jn 3.9 ‘No one who is born of God practices sin, because his seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God’.



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 105

but does bear witness to his belief that by Jesus’ death forgiveness of sin is possible for human beings. Hilary explains the purpose of the incarnation as being for the forgiveness of sins. He writes, ‘For he [Christ] took upon himself the flesh in which we have sinned that by assuming our flesh, he might forgive sins’ (De Trin. 1.13).39 He stresses that, although he was fully human (‘a flesh which he shares with us by assuming it’), Christ nevertheless did not sin. He further explains that this forgiveness is causally tied to Christ’s death, which is only possible on the assumption of the incarnation. In particular, under the influence of Gal. 3.13 ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law’ etc., he asserts that, by allowing himself to be killed, Christ abolishes all the curses resulting from disobedience to the Law and annuls thereby the sentence of death decreed against human beings.40 Ambrose likewise asserts that Christ provides the possibility of forgiveness of sins (Enarr. in ps. 39.2). Finally, in response to the charge that nothing in scripture foretells the suffering and death of the Messiah, Rufinus of Aquileia appeals to Lam. 4.20 ‘The Spirit of our countenance, Christ the Lord, was taken in our corruptions’, which he takes to be prophetic of Christ’s deliverance to corruption because of human sins. He writes, ‘You hear how the prophet says that Christ the Lord was taken, and for us, that is, for our sins, delivered to corruption’ (Comm. in Symb. Ap. 19).41 He means that the purpose Christ’s death was for the forgiveness of sins. 4. Christ’s Death as Redemptive The term redemption (a)polu&trwsij) is used in the New Testament to denote the soteriological benefit resulting from Christ’s suffering and death.42 It is used originally in relation to the manumission of slaves by paying a ransom, the designated price for their freedom.43 It is also used

39. Carnem enim peccati receipt, ut assumptione nostrae carnis delicta donaret. 40. Hilary writes, ‘He blotted out through death the sentence of death, that by a new creation of our race in himself he might sweep away the penalty appointed by the former Law. He let them nail him to the cross that he might nail to the curse of the cross and abolish all the curses to which the world is condemned’ (De Trin. 1.13). 41. Audis quomodo propheta Christum Dominum comprehensus esse dicit, et pro nobis, id est pro peccatis nostris corruption traditum. 42. The use of the uncompounded lutro&w and lu&trwsij is more common in lxx, but has the same meaning. 43. In Lev. 25.47-53 an Israelite who sells himself into slavery retains the right to redeem himself by buying his freedom for a prorated price relative to the next Year of Jubilee. See Plutarch, Pomp. 24.5; Ep. Arist. 12; 33; Philo, Omn. prob. lib. 114; Josephus, Ant. 12.27).

106

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

metaphorically to describe Israel’s liberation from slavery in Egypt,44 and occurs with a similar eschatological meaning.45 In its metaphorical use, the emphasis is on the effect, not the process of redemption, so that it is inappropriate to inquire to whom the ransom is paid.46 Paul makes metaphorical use of the term ‘redemption’ and its cognate ‘to redeem’, but not always with the same meaning. He writes about being justified ‘through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 3.24) and refers to Christ as ‘our redemption’ (1 Cor. 1.30). In both passages he uses the term redemption to denote generally the salvation-historical benefit that Christ make possible by means of his death. Paul also describes how his readers were redeemed from the Law and its curse because of Christ’s death, by which he means rescued or freed (Gal. 3.13).47 Explicating what it means to call him savior (swth&r), Paul writes that Christ Jesus ‘gave himself for us in order to redeem us from all lawlessness’ (Tit. 2.13-14).48 By using the expression ‘he gave himself’, he is stressing that Christ’s death was voluntary; by the use of the prepositional phrase ‘for us’, he intends to communicate that it was for the benefit of others (‘us’). The particular benefit is then identified as redeeming human beings (‘us’) from all lawlessness (a)po_ pa&shj a)nomi/aj). In other words, God rescues human beings from sin and its consequences (‘all lawlessness’), which implies forgiveness of sins. Along the same lines, Paul speaks about having ‘redemption in Christ through his blood’ (Eph. 1.7) and of him as one ‘in whom we have redemption’ (Col. 1.14).49 In these contexts, it is clear that the term redemption is roughly synonymous with forgiveness, which is confirmed by his inclusion of the phrases ‘forgiveness of transgressions’ and ‘forgiveness of sins’ in apposition to ‘redemption’:

44. Exod. 6.6; 15.13; Deut. 7.8; 9.26; 13.5[6]; 15.15; 21.8; 24.18; 2 Sam. 7.23; 1 Chron. 17.21; Neh. 1.10; Pss. 24[25].22; 78[77].42; 106[105].10; 107[106].2; 111[110].9; 130[129].7-8; Isa. 63.9; Jer. 31.11. 45. Isa. 35.9; Isa. 41.14; 43.1, 14; 51.11; 52.3; 62.12. Similarly, Hos. 13.14 speaks metaphorically of being redeemed from death, and Ps. 106(107).2; 31.5 [30.6]; 136[135].24 of being redeemed from enemies (see also Pss. 26[25].11; 32[31].7). In lxx Dan. 4.3: Nebuchadnezzar says that ‘my time of redemption has come’, by which he means his metaphorical redemption from his seven years of mental incapacitation. 46. The term ‘redemption’ a)polutrw&sij is not used in the lxx to describe the beneficial effect of sacrifice. Philo, however, connects the concept of ‘redemption’ with sacrifice, insofar as he describes the altar as that ‘by which is given redemption and forgiveness from all sins and transgressions’ (Spec. leg. 1.215). 47. Gal. 3.13: ‘Christ bought us back from the curse of the law’ (xri/stoj h(ma~j e0chgo&rasen e0k th~j kata&raj tou~ no&mou) (e0cagora&zw); Gal. 4.5: ‘in order to buy back those under the law’ (i3na tou_j u(po_ no&mon e0cagora&sh|) (e0cagora&zw). 48. e1dwken e(auto_n u(pe_r h(mw~n, i3na lutrw&shtai h(ma~j a)po_ pa&saj a)nomi/aj. 49. See Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 193-97.



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 107

a person is redeemed insofar as he is forgiven.50 According to him, whatever its exact meaning in any given context, this redemption is ‘in’ (e0n + dative) Christ Jesus (Rom. 3.24; Col. 1.14) and is ‘through’ (dia& + genitive) Christ’s blood (Eph. 1.7), by which he means because of the death of Christ. He further identifies this redemption as the basis for ‘being justified freely by his grace’ (Rom. 3.24). Paul can even call Christ himself ‘redemption’, meaning that Christ is the instrument by which believers have been ‘redeemed’ (1 Cor. 1.30).51 In Heb. 9.12 the author describes Christ’s entrance into the heavenly holy of holies as both High Priest and offering at once as having the result of ‘obtaining eternal redemption’.52 A few verses later, he asserts that the reason that Christ became the mediator of a new covenant was for the purpose that, since a death has taken place (qana&tou genome/nou), by which is meant Christ’s own death, he would become the means of redemption for those who transgressed under the first covenant (9.15).53 The phrase ‘for redemption’ (ei0j a)polu&trwsin) signifies the purpose of Christ’s death. As used in Hebrews, the term redemption means the forgiveness of sins that is causally tied to Christ’s suffering and death. That redemption made possible by Christ is said to be eternal because its effects are. The idea of Christ’s death as redemptive also occurs in a paschal context in 1 Pet. 1.18-19: ‘You were redeemed…with the precious blood of Christ’.54 In the same way the Israelites were rescued from Egypt, so his readers were rescued from their ‘empty way of life’ (1.18). The author retains the idea of a redemption price because he contrasts the usual price of redemption—silver or gold—with the much more valuable price—the precious blood of Christ. Finally, it is said that Christians have been loosed from their sins by the blood of Christ, which seems to be virtually synonymous with being redeemed from the

50. Eph. 1.7 ‘In him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our transgressions’; Col. 1.14 ‘in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins’. 51. Paul can also refer to the resurrection of the dead as the ‘redemption of the body’ (Rom. 8.23). Similarly, he speaks about the Spirit as a pledge of the future ‘redemption of [God’s] possession’ (Eph. 1.14). See also Eph. 4.30 ‘the day of redemption’. 52. ai)wni/an lu&trwsin eu(ra&menoj. The term ‘eternal redemption’ (Mymlw(  twdp) is found in 1QM 1.12; 15.1; 18.11 (see Palestinian Targum Gen. 48.18). See Harold W. Attridge, Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 244-49; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 448-53; William Lane, Hebrews 9-13 (WBC, 47b; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), pp. 236-39; John M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests (JSNTSup, 49: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), pp. 159-69. 53. The phrase e0pi\ th~| prwth| diaqh&kh| means ‘on the basis of’ or ‘under’, in the sense of being submitted to. 54. e0lutrw&qhte…timi/w| ai#mati.

108

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

same (Rev. 1.5). To be so loosed is to be freed from the consequences of sins, which is forgiveness.55 In continuity with the New Testament, early Christian theologians make frequent use of the concept of ‘redemption’ and ‘to redeem’ to signify the soteriological benefit that Christ makes possible through his suffering and death. Although they often exhibit the same generality of meaning, they sometimes equate it with the forgiveness of sins, as in the New Testament; in addition, they connect it with being saved or salvation and with being freed from death. In some cases, they make use of the concept in new theological settings, in particular to explain the purpose of the incarnation to the detractors of the doctrine; in so doing they provide further insights into what is implied by the concept. In 1 Clement, the term redemption is equivalent in meaning to salvation: ‘There shall be redemption unto all them who believe and hope on God’ (12.7) and ‘the blood of Christ…being shed for our salvation’ (7.4). This redemption is causally connected to the blood of Christ, by which is meant Christ’s death (‘through the blood of the Lord’) (12.7). Extrapolating from scripture, the author makes a typological connection between the scarlet thread that Rahab hung from her house as a sign to the Israelites that she and her family were to be spared and the blood of Christ (‘the Lord’) by which those who have faith in and put their hope in God have redemption (lutrw&sij) (Josh. 2; 6.22-25; see Heb. 11.31).56 Irenaeus likewise makes use of the terms ‘redemption’ and ‘to redeem’. In his work Demonstration, he says that by means of the incarnation Christ the son of God accomplished ‘our redemption’ (37). This seems to be general statement of the soteriological benefit made possible by Christ’s suffering and death. Later in the same work he innovatively interprets lxx Isa. 65.15 and 63.9 as foretelling the salvation-historical result of Christ’s appearance in the world (88). The former text is said to be a prophecy that those who serve God insofar as they are Christians will be saved, whereas the latter indicates that Christ will redeem human beings by means of his own death: ‘And that in the end by his name they should be saved who served God, Isaiah says: “And on those who serve me a new name shall be called, which shall be blessed upon the earth: and they shall bless the true God”. And that this blessing he himself should bring about, and himself should redeem us by his own blood, Isaiah declared, saying: “No mediator, no angel, but the Lord himself saved them; because 55. ‘Has loosed us from our sins by his blood’ (lu&santi h(ma~j e0k tw~n a(martiw~n h(mw~n e0n tw~| ai#mati au)tou~) (lu&w). 56. ‘And moreover they gave her a sign, that she should hang out from her house a scarlet thread, thereby showing beforehand that through the blood of the Lord there shall be redemption unto all them that believe and hope on God’ (1 Clem. 12.7).



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 109

he loved them and spared them: he himself redeemed them”’ (88). To be saved and to be redeemed are coordinate terms: the former describes negatively being spared from the consequences of divine judgment and the latter refers positively to the soteriological benefit that Christ makes possible for human beings. It is clear from Irenaeus’s Against Heresies that redemption (a)polu&trwsij) is a preferred theological term of the Gnostics, although there is no agreement among the various sects concerning its nature (1.13.6; 1.21.1-5). Against them, he repeatedly insists that there cannot be redemption without the blood of Christ, by which he means his physical death; he rejects their Docetic view that Christ could not suffer since he was not truly flesh and blood (Adv. haer. 3.5.3; 16.9; 4.20.2; 5.1.1; 2.1; 2.2; 14.3-4; see 5.14.4). He cites Rom. 5.8 ‘being now justified by his blood’ in support of his view that Christ redeemed human beings by means of his suffering and death: ‘Christ did suffer, and was himself the son of God, who died for us, and redeemed us with his blood at the time appointed beforehand’ (3.16.9). Similarly Irenaeus twice quotes Eph. 1.7 ‘redemption in Christ through his blood’ to the same effect. First, to refute the Gnostic view of a bloodless redemption, he writes, ‘By his own blood he redeemed us, as also his apostle declares, “in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins”’. Second, he quotes Eph. 1.7 in order to prove that only by becoming fully human did Christ redeem human beings: ‘But now, by means of communion with himself, the Lord has reconciled man to God the father, in reconciling us to himself by the body of his own flesh, and redeeming us by his own blood, as the apostle says to the Ephesians, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins”’ (5.14.3). Along the same lines, Irenaeus adds the interpretive gloss ‘and who redeemed us with his own blood’ to Rev. 5.12 ‘the Lamb who was slain’ (4.20.2) (see also 4.5.4 ‘a sacrifice for our redemption’). He also writes that by Christ’s own blood human beings are redeemed from apostasy, by which is meant being rescued from human rebellion against God (3.5.3; 5.1.1), and of how Christ destroyed sin and redeemed humanity condemned to die (3.18.7). Again, it is clear that for Irenaeus ‘redemption’ and ‘to redeem’ are used to denote in general the soteriological benefit made possible by Christ’s real suffering and death. The term redemption occurs frequently in the writings of Athanasius, where, in conjunction with other theological terms, it is used to explain the purpose of the incarnation. His theological method is to produce an insightful theological synthesis by interpreting scripture in light of scripture. Under the influence of the Christological hymn in Phil. 2.6-9, he asserts that, unless the son humbled himself by taking on the form of a servant (insofar as he became a man), human beings could not be redeemed from their sins, by which is meant could not be forgiven, nor raised from the dead. He writes, ‘For if the Lord had not become man, we had not been redeemed from sins,

110

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

not raised from the dead’ (Ar. 1.43; see 1.60 ‘to redeem all’).57 Contrary to the Arian interpretation of Phil. 2.9 ‘Therefore also God highly exalted him’ etc., he claims that the son’s exaltation is only in order that human beings can be exalted, for the Word of God has need of nothing. Elucidating what it means for Christ to become the guarantee of a better covenant (Heb. 7.22), Athanasius undertakes to explain the purpose for which the ingenerate son became flesh (Jn 1.17) (Ar. 1.60; see 1.45). Interpreting Jn 3.17 in light of Rom. 8.3, he writes, ‘For the son of God came into the world, not to judge the world, but to redeem all men, and that the world might be saved through him. Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all’. His version of Jn 3.17 is amplified by the addition of the interpretive phrase ‘but to redeem all’ (i3na pa&ntaj lutrw&shtai), which implies that for Athanasius being saved or having salvation is functionally equivalent to being redeemed. This salvation or redemption made possible by the incarnation of the Word and his suffering and death consists not just in exemption from judgment, but also spiritual renewal, which by means Pauline terminology is expressed as no longer walking no longer according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. Athanasius equates salvation and redemption in another passage: ‘Being loving and kind, prepared beforehand in his own Word, by whom also he created us, the economy of our salvation…but having in the Word the redemption and salvation which was before prepared for us, we might rise again and abide immortal’ (Ar. 2.75). According to him, salvation (swthri/a), which is synonymous with redemption (lutrw&sij), is the salvation-historical purpose of the incarnation. Both terms seem to refer generally to the soteriological benefit that Christ’s death makes possible for human beings, which includes resurrection and being granted immortality. Similarly, exegeting the much-disputed passage Prov. 8.22, Athanasius claims that the statement that God created the Son for the works refers to the creation of his manhood for the salvation-historical purpose (‘economy’) of redeeming human beings from the sin that reigned in them and bringing them into his father’s kingdom (Ar. 2.52).58 In this context, to redeem seems to mean the forgiveness of sins. Another functional equivalent of the term ‘redemption’ is ‘restoration’ (dio&rqwsij): ‘So, on being set “for the works”, he is not set for things which did not yet exist, but for such as already were and needed restoration’ (2.52). Athanasius insists that the Word did indeed become Lord and King in a salvation-historical sense by virtue of his incarnation and death, as Peter 57. ou)k a@n h(mei~j a)po_ a(martiw~n lutrwqe/ntej e0k nekrw~n a)ne/sthmen. 58. i3na, a)po_ th~j basileuou&shj e0n au)toi~j a(marti/aj lutrwsa&menoj au)tou&j te kai_ h(ma~j, poih&sh| u(po_ th_n patrikh_n basilei/an e9autou~.



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 111

explains in Acts 2.26, but also insists, in refutation of the Arian position, that the Word was already everlasting Lord and King in essence. He writes, ‘And the Word being everlasting Lord and king, it is very plain again that Peter said not that the essence of the son was made, but spoke of his Lordship over us, which “became” when he became man, and, redeeming all by the cross, became Lord of all and King’. What the Word accomplishes by virtue of his incarnation and death Athanasius calls ‘redeeming all by the cross’ (tw~| staurw~| pa&ntaj lutrwsa&menoj) (Ar. 2.13). He makes the further point that this redemption (lu&trwsij) is fittingly accomplished by one who is the Lord in nature and not merely in function, since the latter would be merely a created being (Ar. 2.14). Again he uses the terms redeem and redemption in a general sense to refer to the soteriological benefit that the Word brings into being by his incarnation and death. Ambrose likewise argues that the purpose of the incarnation is to redeem human beings, because it is as flesh that human beings have sinned (De Inc. Dom. Sacr. 6.56, 67-68). In this case, the term ‘to redeem’ again denotes generally the soteriological benefit available through the incarnate Christ. Exegeting Rom. 3.24, Origen connects being justified by faith with the redemption in Christ, as Paul intends. He then defines redemption as the price paid for release from captivity: ‘Redemption is said to be that which is given to suppress the enemy for them, of whom he was in captivity, in order to restore them to his former liberty’ (Comm. Rom. 3.24).59 To be justified is to be redeemed from captivity, in particular from captivity to sin; the implication is that redemption is equivalent to forgiveness of sins. Although it is tied to Christ’s death, the stress is on the effect of redemption, not on its process. Origen then quotes 1 Cor. 1.30 ‘who became to us…redemption’ and 1 Pet. 1.18-19 ‘redeemed…with precious blood’ as complementary passages to Rom. 3.24. Cyril of Jerusalem uses the terms ‘redemption’ and ‘salvation’ as synonyms; for him both terms signify generally the soteriological benefit that Christ acquires for human beings by his actual, and not merely apparent, suffering and death. He says, ‘Jesus then really suffered for all men; for the cross was no illusion, otherwise our redemption is an illusion also. His death was not a mere show, for then is our salvation also fabulous’ (Cat. lect. 13.4).60 In his view, Christ’s apparent suffering and death would only effect an apparent redemption or salvation. That from which Christ redeemed human beings by means of his suffering and death is said to be sins, so that 59. Redemptio dicitur id quod datur hostibus pro his quos in captivitate detinent, ut eos restituant pristinae libertati. 60. e1paqen ou}n I)hsou~j kata_ a)lh&qeian u(pe_r pa&ntwn a)nqrw&pwn ou) ga_r do&khsij o( stauro_j, e0pei\ do&khsij kai\ h( lu&trwsij ou) fantasiw&dhj o( qa&natoj, e0pei\ kai\ muqw&dhj h( swthri/a.

112

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

to be redeemed from sins to be forgiven of them: ‘But when Jesus had finished his course of patient endurance, and had redeemed mankind from their sins’ (4.13).61 After this result was accomplished, Christ then ascended to heaven (Acts 1.9-11). In another lecture, in dependence on 1 Pet. 1.19, Cyril says that Christ gave his own precious blood for human beings: ‘For he who had mercy on them came, and was crucified, and rose again, giving his own precious blood both for Jews and gentiles’ (14.20).62 He explains that Christ died for the whole world and thereby redeemed it (13.2).63 In this context, to redeem is a general term describing the soteriological benefit resulting from Christ’s death. He further explains why Christ’s death was unique by identifying him by the Johannine title ‘only-begotten son of God’. Cyril also teaches that Christ redeemed the righteous dead in Hades in the sense of rescuing them (Cat. lect. 4.11; 14.19). The term ‘to redeem’ forms part of the theological vocabulary of Clement of Alexandria, referring in general to the soteriological benefit causally tied to Christ’s death. He writes that Christ has emancipated, healed and redeemed a Christian, each term being roughly synonymous (Dives 23).64 Similarly, he asserts that the blood of Christ redeems human beings: ‘through his blood, by which we are redeemed’ (Paedag. 1.6).65 Clement also asserts somewhat obscurely that there is a twofold blood, the literal blood that Christ shed in his death, which he calls the ‘blood of the flesh’, and the spiritual blood manifested in the Eucharist, which he identifies with the Holy Spirit. He says of the former type of blood that by it human beings are redeemed from corruption, by which he means a partaker of the Lord’s immortality, being freed from death (Paedag. 2.2).66 Cyprian makes a few assertions about Christ’s death as redemptive. Consistent with 1 Pet. 1.1819, he writes that through his death Christ overcomes death and thereby redeems the believer with the price of his blood; it is the means by which a human being is reconciled to God. This event he identifies as ‘this grace Christ bestows’ and ‘this gift of his mercy he confers upon us’ (Demetr. 5.25).67 Similarly, he explains that Christ ‘redeemed us with his blood (nos sanguine suo redimeret)’. In both cases, Cyprian uses the term ‘to redeem’ to denote generally the soteriological benefit resulting from Christ’s death 61. kai_ tou_j a)nqrw&pouj lutrwsa&menoj tw~n a(martiw~n 62. dou_j e9autou~ to_ ai3ma to_ ti/mion u(pe_r 0Ioudai&wn te kai_ e0qnw~n. 63. kai\ mh_ qauma&sh|j ei0 ko&smoj o#loj e0lutrw&qh. ou) ga_r h}n a!nqrwpoj yilo_j. a)lla_ u(io_j qeou~ monogenh_j, o( u(perapoqnh&skwn. 64. h)leuqe/rwsa,i0asamhn, e0lutrwsa&mhn. 65. dia_ to_ ai{ma au)tou~, w{| lutrou&meqa. 66. w{| th~j fqora~j lelurw&meqa. 67. Hanc gratiam Christus impertit, hoc munus misericordiae suae tribuit, subigendo mortem trophaeo crucis, redimendo credentem pretio sanguinis sui, reconciliando hominem Dei Patri, vivificando mortalem regeneratione coelesti.



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 113

(De Dom. or. 30; see De op. et eleem. 2). He identifies Christ’s death as the price by which the redemption occurs, by which he means what makes it possible. Finally, alluding to 1 Pet. 1.19, Cyril of Alexandria states that Christ’s precious blood death suffices as a means of redemption, by which he seems to mean a means of forgiveness (Glaphyr. in Pent. [Exodus] 2).68 Similarly, he explains that it is God’s will to bring redemption and restoration to the world through Christ and in Christ (Quod unus sit Christus).69 For him the term redemption is coordinate in meaning with restoration. 5. Reconciliation through Christ In Paul’s letters, the soteriological benefit that Christ’s suffering and death makes possible is identified as reconciliation. With one exception,70 the apostle uses the term ‘to reconcile’ to denote a restoration of relationship between God and human beings.71 It could also be said that to be ‘accepted in the beloved’ also expresses the idea of reconciliation (Eph. 1.6).72 As a correlate of being justified by faith, Paul states in Rom. 5.10 that Christ’s death effects reconciliation to God. Formerly, human beings were enemies of God. The implication is that, before being reconciled, something came between human beings and God and created hostility between them.73 Paul writes, ‘For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his son’ (5.10a).74 It is this hostility between human beings and God that the death of the son remediates. Using the fact of reconciliation with God as his protasis, Paul then puts forth an argument from minor to major: ‘all the more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life’ (5.10b). By being saved, he means saved from the consequences of divine judgment (see 1 Tim. 1.15 ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners’). He conceives of Christ’s death and resurrection (life) as a unified event. Paul then says that, having received ‘the reconciliation’ (th_n katallagh_n), Christians ‘boast in God’ (Rom. 5.11). As in Rom. 5.2, to boast is to rejoice in 68. ou)kou~n o#ti mh_ i9kano_j o( no&moj toi~j ei)j lu&trwsin, a)po&xrh de\ h(mi~n ei)j tou~to ti/mion ai{ma tou~ Xristou~… 69. Tou~to de_ h{n h( dia_ tou~ timi/ou staurou~ lu&trwsij kai_ a)nakefalai&esij tw~n o#lwn. 70. 1 Cor. 7.11. 71. The intensive form a)pokatalla&ssw is found two other times in the New Testament (Col. 1.22; Eph. 2.16). Its root katalla&ssw occurs twice in Rom. 5.10; 1 Cor. 7.11; 2 Cor. 5.18, 19, 20 and the cognate noun katallagh& occurs in Rom. 5.11; 11.15; 2 Cor. 5.18, 19. 72. e0xari/twsen h(ma~j e0n tw~| h)gaphme/nw| 73. See the use of the term in Rom. 11.15 ‘if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world’. 74. e0xqroi_ o!ntej kathlla&ghmen tw~| qew~| dia_ tou~ qana&tou tou~ ui9ou~ au)tou~

114

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

God (see Rom. 2.17; 1 Cor. 1.31 [Jer. 9.24]; see also Phil. 3.3 ‘boasting in Christ Jesus’). The boasting in God is no doubt because of the reconciliation effected by God ‘through our Lord Jesus Christ’. Similarly, in 2 Cor. 5.19, Paul explains that because of Christ God is able to reconcile the world to himself: ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their transgressions against them’. In other words, through Christ God removes the estrangement between himself and human beings and this results in forgiveness of sins, which is expressed as not imputing sins to those reconciled. Paul makes it clear that God takes the initiative in reconciling the world. As Forsyth expresses it, ‘It means not so much that God is reconciled, but that God is the Reconciler… So much of our orthodox religion has come to talk as though God were reconciled by a third party. We lose sight of this great central verse, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself”’.75 In another of his letters, Paul states that through Christ God ‘reconciles all things to himself’ (Col. 1.19).76 In spite of fact that God created all things through Christ there is now a disruption in the relationship between God and his creation (1.16). The all things that are reconciled are said to include all things on earth and in heaven, so that the reconciliation is truly inclusive (1.20a).77 As explicative of his statement in Col. 1.20a, Paul adds that God ‘makes peace through his blood of the cross’ (1.20b).78 It is clear, therefore, that to reconcile is the same as to make peace in the sense of bringing about a cessation of hostility, and this is put into effect through the death of Christ. Later Paul makes the same point by saying that ‘He [God] has now reconciled you in his [Christ’s] body of flesh through death’ (1.22).79 By the phrase ‘body of flesh’ is meant Christ’s physical body, as opposed to some type of illusory body. The spiritual condition of human beings before being reconciled is described as being alienated from God (a)phllotiwme/nouj) and being enemies towards God with respect to the mind (e0xqrou_j th~| dianoi/a)| . For Paul the mind is not so much the faculty of rational thought

75. Peter T. Forsyth, The Work of Christ (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), p. 82. 76. Col. 1.19. The reason that it is better to take au)to_n as referring to God and not Christ is that on the latter interpretation God would reconcile all things through Christ to Christ, which makes less sense than saying the God reconciles all things to himself through Christ. The phrase ei0j au)to_n should be understood as implicitly reflexive. 77. On Col. 1.19-22, see James D.G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 101-104; Douglas Moo, The Letter to the Colossians and Philemon (PNTC; Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 2008), pp. 131-41. 78. In the New Testament, the verb ei)rhnpoie/w only occurs in Col. 1.20; it is found in lxx Prov. 10.10. 79. a)pokath&llacen e0n tw~| sw&mati th~j sarko_j au)tou~ dia_ tou~ qana&tou.



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 115

as it is the basic disposition of a person.80 A mind that is an enemy towards God manifests its antagonism towards God by its evil behavior. In Col. 1.21-22 Paul has in view primarily the enmity of human beings towards God, not God towards human beings, but this is not necessarily to deny that he also believes that God can be angry towards human beings.81 The early church fathers likewise interpret Christ’s suffering and death as the means by which human beings are reconciled to God. In some cases they connect it with other soteriological terms and draw theological implications from it. Irenaeus cites Rom. 5.6-10 for the purpose of demonstrating that Paul knows nothing of a distinction between the human Jesus and the impassible aeon Christ or the Savior (Adv. haer. 3.16.9). Moreover, in order to prove that Christ actually assumed flesh, he argues that Christ could not have redeemed and reconciled human beings who were estranged from God because of their sins otherwise. He explains, ‘Now, if the Lord had taken flesh from another substance, he would not, by so doing, have reconciled that one to God who had become inimical through transgression. But now, by means of communion with himself, the Lord has reconciled man to God the father, in reconciling us to himself by the body of his own flesh, and redeeming us by his own blood’ (Adv. haer. 5.14.3; see 3.16.9). Irenaeus’s point is that the one who reconciles and redeems human beings must be like them in order to do so. For him, the terms to reconcile and to redeem are coordinate in meaning, although not synonymous. He then cites Eph. 1.7; 2.13; 2.15 to provide further evidence for his position. Cyprian also refers to Christ as both redeeming the one who believes by the price of his blood and reconciling human beings to God: ‘by redeeming the believer with the price of his blood, by reconciling man to God the father’ (Demert. 25).82 For him both events ensue because of the death of Christ. Tertullian cites Col. 1.20 to make the point that a human being cannot be reconciled to God unless there has been a previous relationship that has been disrupted. This could only mean that, contrary to Marcion’s teaching that the creator and reconciler are different beings, there is one God, the creator and the one who reconciles his creation through Christ. He writes, ‘To whom, again, does he “reconcile all things by himself, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1.20), but to him whom those very things had altogether offended, against whom they had rebelled by transgression, (but) to whom they had at last returned? Conciliated they might have been to a strange god; but reconciled they could not possibly have been to any 80. The equivalent would be fro&nhma, which can be of the flesh or the Sprit (Rom. 8.5-7). 81. See Col. 3.6: ‘For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience’. 82. Redimendo credentem pretio sanguinis sui, reconciliando hominem Deo Patri.

116

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

other than their own God’ (Adv. Marc. 5.19).83 As Paul intends, Chrysostom causally connects God’s reconciliation with the world with his not imputing sins to human beings (2 Cor. 5.19) (In ep. ad 2 Cor. Hom. 11). He includes a gloss to the effect that God has forgiven without requiring satisfaction for our sins, which is what not imputing their transgressions against them is said to mean. He writes, ‘Although our sins were so great, he did not require satisfaction, but even became reconciled. He not only forgave, he did not even impute’.84 Not imputing goes beyond forgiving because God suspends permanently the issue of justice in relation to human beings. If God had not done this, then all would perish because of their sins. Chrysostom’s gloss, however, is interpretive and perhaps even overly speculative. Along the same lines, Hilary writes that human beings are reconciled to God by the body and blood of Christ, and connects this with Christ as priest under the influence of Hebrews (Tr. ps. 149.3).85 Finally, Clement of Alexandria calls Christ the reconciler (diallakth&j), among other titles (Protr. 10). 6. Cursed is the One Hanging on a Tree According to Deut. 21.22-23, the bodies of executed criminals, who are by definition cursed under the Law, are to be hung on a tree until evening. Although the Hebrew is somewhat ambiguous, it is generally agreed that the passage refers to the practice of executing a criminal and then subsequently hanging the body on a tree (see Josh. 8.29; 10.26-27). In secondTemple interpretation, however, being hung on a tree is understood as a means of execution and becomes equated with crucifixion. In the Temple Scroll, God commands that the traitor to his people or anyone convicted of a capital crime is to be put to death by being hung from a tree: ‘You are to hang him on a tree until dead’.86 Such a man is said to be cursed, which necessitates that his body be removed from the tree by evening, for otherwise it would defile the land: ‘Indeed, anyone hung on a tree is cursed of God and men, but you are not to defile the land that I am about to give you as an inheritance’.87 That being hung on a tree refers to crucifixion is confirmed by 4QpNahum, which describes how (Alexander) Jannaeus, ‘the furious young lion’, hanged his (Pharisaic) opponents ‘alive on a tree’, a reference to their crucifixion (1.6-8; see Josephus, War 1.97; Ant. 13.380).88 83. Consiliari enim extraneo possent; reconciliari vero, non alii quam suo. 84. 'All' o#mwj tosou~twn o!ntwn tw~n a(marthma&twn, ou) mo&non ou)k a)ph&|thse di/khn, a)lla_ kai_ kathlla&gh: ou) mo&non a)fh~ken, a)ll' ou)de\ e0logi/sato. 85. Reconciliati enim sumus per corpus et sanguinem Christ ex inimicis in filios Deo, cum nobis aeterni sacerdotis placationem impoenitentiae sacramento spopondisset. 86. See 11QTa 64.8: tmyw C(h l( wtw) hmtyltw. 87. 11QTa 64.7-13 = 4Q524 frag. 14, lines 2-4. 88. J.M. Baumgarten, ‘Does the TLH in the Temple Scroll Refer to Crucifixion?’, JBL



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 117

In the New Testament, the cross on which Jesus is executed is sometimes called a tree (or wood) (cu/lon), which is the Greek word used in lxx Deut. 21.23 ‘on the tree’ (Peter: Acts 5.30; 13.29; 1 Pet. 2.24; Paul: Acts 10.39; Gal. 3.13).89 The obvious intention is to assert that, insofar as he was crucified, Jesus must have been cursed by God. He was not cursed for his own sins, however, but for the sins of others.90 Paul explains, ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law (by) becoming a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed in the one who hangs on a tree”’ (Gal. 3.13).91 He concludes in Gal. 3.11a that, ‘It is evident that by the Law no one is justified before God’. He seems to be speaking universally (‘us’), when strictly speaking what he says can only apply to Jews, those under the Law, and therefore not to the Galatians, who were gentiles. Probably, he tacitly assumes that the Jewish experience under the Law is representative and can therefore be spoken of as universally true.92 The representative status of the Jews accounts for the ambiguity of Paul’s use of the first person plural in Gal. 3.10, 13, 23-25; 4.3-5.93 Christ becomes a curse in the place of those who are actually under 91 (1972), pp. 472-81; Martin Hengel, Crucifixion: In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (London: SCM Press, 1977), p. 84; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ‘Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature and the New Testament’, CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 493-513; J. Maier, The Temple Scroll (JSOTSup, 34; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 132-34. Torleif Elgvin, ‘The Messiah Who Was Cursed on the Tree’, Themelios 22/3 (1997), pp. 14-22; David W. Chapman, Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), pp. 117-48. 89. lxx Deut. 21.23 e)pi_ cu&lou; Heb. C(h_l(. In Greek, the word ‘wood’ or ‘tree’ (cu&lon) came also to refer to a gallows or cross, the instrument by which criminals were executed (Alexis Com. 220.10; Aristophanes, Frogs 737; lxx Gen. 40.19; Est. 5.14; 6.4; Philo, Somn. 2.213; Josephus, Ant. 11.246). The use of the term to_ cu&lon (wood) would connote criminality for a Greek-speaking Jew. 90. From Letter of Barnabas (7) and Dialogue with Tryphon (32.1; 89.1), it is clear that many Jews rejected the view that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah because he was crucified and therefore was cursed of God. 91. H.J. Schoeps, Paul. The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), pp. 175-83; H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 249-50; H.-J. Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Gal 2,15-4,7 (WUNT, 86; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996), pp. 150-65. 92. Paul cites a different Greek version from that found in the lxx; his version omits the prepositional phrase ‘by God’ [u(po_ qeou~]. Franz Mußner argues that Paul omits the phrase u(po_ qeou~ because he could not conceive of the possibility that Christ could be cursed by God (Der Galaterbrief [HTKNT, 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974], p. 233). One could say, however, that Christ was cursed by God, but not on account of his own sins. 93. See T. Donaldson, ‘The “Curse of the Law” and the Inclusion of Gentiles: Galatians 3:13-14’, NTS 32 (1986), pp. 94-112. In-Gyu Hong argues that Paul uses the first person plural exclusively, denoting thereby only Jews (The Law in Galatians [JSNTSup, 81; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993], pp. 78-79). He holds that the reference

118

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

the curse of the Law. The phrase ‘curse of the Law’ is a genitive of origin: curse from the Law. The consequence of Christ’s becoming a curse is that he ‘redeemed those who were originally under the curse of the Law’ (see Gal. 4.4-5). The verb to redeem in this context, as already indicated, means to rescue or free from. Paul’s point is that Christ’s act of becoming a curse frees those under the curse from that very curse.94 The early church fathers make extensive use of the interpretation of Christ as cursed insofar as he was crucified and intertextually connect Deut. 21.22-23 with other scriptural passages. In some cases there is an interest in proving that Christ could not have been thus cursed without being truly incarnate. Under the influence of 1 Pet. 2.22, 24, Polycarp writes, ‘Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, who bore our sins in his own body on the tree (1 Pet. 2.24), who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth (1 Pet. 2.22), but endured all things for us, that we might live in him’ (Pol. Phil. 8). The implication is that Christ was under a curse insofar as he was hung from a tree and that the curse resulted from bearing the sins of others. Interpreting Gen. 49.10-12, Irenaeus states that Jesus hung from a tree insofar as he was crucified, and further claims to find a scripture that predicts that Jesus’ contemporaries would not understand the salvation-historical significance of his death. He writes, ‘And again, he indicates that he who from the beginning founded and created them, the Word, who also redeems and vivifies us in the last times, is shown as hanging on the tree, and they will not believe on him. For he says, “And your life shall be hanging before your eyes, and you will not believe your life” (Deut. 28.66)’ (Adv. haer. 4.10.2). He takes the reference to your life hanging before you to refer to Christ, the source of eternal life, hanging from a tree, in whom his contemporaries did not believe. The original Hebrew text, however, does not support this interpretation.95 Again implicitly Irenaeus holds that Christ was cursed insofar as he was hung from a tree; his being cursed becomes the source of eternal life for human beings. Athanasius also interprets Deut. 28.66 messianically, arguing that the one described in this passage can fit no one but Christ, since Christ is no mere man but is the life of all, who suffers for human beings by being hung on a tree: ‘But he whom the scriptures declare to suffer on behalf to gentiles in 3.14a creates a contrast between the first person plural in 3.14b, which is inclusive of gentiles, and the first person plural in 3.13, which is exclusive of gentiles. Hong’s proposal is possible, but there does not seem to be enough indication from the text to substantiate it. 94. Mußner, Der Galaterbrief, pp. 232-33; Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement, pp. 243-51. 95. Kyyxb Nym)t )low.



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 119

of all is called not merely man but life of all, although in point of fact he did share our human nature. “You shall see your life hanging before your eyes”, they say, and “Who shall declare of what lineage he comes?” (lxx Isa. 53.7)’ (Incarn. 37). He explains the reason for Christ’s crucifixion by citing Gal. 3.13: ‘Indeed the Lord offered for our sakes the one death that was supremely good. He had come to bear the curse that lay on us; and how could he “become a curse” otherwise than by accepting the accursed death? And that death is the cross, for it is written “Cursed is every one that hangs on tree”’ (Incarn. 25). Against the Arians, Athanasius argues that a reason for the incarnation is so that Christ might become cursed for us (Gal. 3.13), to which he intertextually adds Isa. 53.4 ‘He has carried our sins’ and 1 Pet. 2.24 ‘He bore our sins in body on the tree’ (Ar. 2.47; see 1.49). He believes that these passages are complementary, each describing the salvation-historical purpose of Christ’s death. Similarly, interpreting the disputed Christological verse ‘The Lord created me…for his works’ (Prov. 8.22), Athanasius asserts that Christ was created only insofar as he became incarnate; one of the works for which he was created was to become a curse. He writes, ‘He became sin for us and a curse, though not having sinned himself, but because he himself bore our sins and our curse’ (Ar. 2.55; see 1.62 ‘when he bore our sins in his own body upon the tree’; 3.33 ‘curse from sin…by becoming curse for us’; and Ep. Epict. 8 ‘he took upon himself the curse on our behalf’). In considering the question of whether a Christian ought to flee persecution or buy exemption from it, Tertullian makes reference to Gal. 3.13: ‘But that you should ransom with money a man whom Christ has ransomed with his blood, how unworthy is it of God and his ways of acting, who spared not his own son for you, that he might be made a curse for us, because cursed is he who hangs on a tree’ (De Fuga 12).96 He then intertextually connects it with Isa. 53.7, interpreting being led to slaughter as becoming a sacrifice: ‘Him who was led as a sheep to be a sacrifice.’97 In his view, being cursed for human beings is the equivalent of being a sacrifice for them. Reflecting upon Deut. 21.22-23, Tertullian makes it explicit that the reason that Christ was crucified and therefore cursed was not for his own sins, in fulfilment of prophecy (Adv. Iud. 10.1-3). He then quotes passages from the Psalms as predictive of Christ’s suffering and death (Pss. 34.12; 69.5; 22.16; 69.22; 22.19) (10.4-5). In an effort to explain why God allowed Christ to be executed, Justin Martyr repeats Paul’s argument in Gal. 3.13-15, but expands it to include gentiles as being under the curse even more than Jews (Dial. 95-96). He writes, ‘The father of all wished his Christ for the whole human family to take upon him the curses of all’ (95). His interest is to univer96. Fieret maledictum pro nobis. 97. Qui tanquam ovis ad victimam ductus est.

120

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

salize Gal. 3.13-15, making it explicit that it is not only those under the Mosaic Law who are cursed.98 Intertextually he inserts into his interpretation a reference to Isa. 53.5 ‘in order that by his stripes the human race might be healed’ (95), and under the influence of Hebrews refers to Christ as ‘the eternal priest of God’ (96).99 Alluding to Gal. 3.13, Origen affirms that Christ, who is blessed, becomes a curse for human beings; because he was blessedness by nature, Christ by his death removes the curse on human beings (Comm. Matt. 11.8). Finally, Cyril of Jerusalem quotes from 1 Pet. 2.24: ‘Christ took our sins in his body on the tree, that we by his death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness’ (Cat. lect. 13.33; see 13.28). Gregory of Nyssa intertextually connects Gal. 3.13 and 2 Cor. 5.21, which implies that for him the two statements are coordinate in meaning: ‘For our sakes he did not refuse to be made sin and a curse’ (Con. Eunom. 2.1.422)100 and ‘He who knew no sin is made sin for us, and frees us from the curse by taking on himself our curse as his own’ (Con. Eunom. 3.10.12).101 In his view, this was a manifestation of God’s superabundant love (peri/esti th~j filanqrwpi/aj) (2.1.422). In addition, Gregory creatively combines Gal. 3.13 with Phil. 2.7, Heb. 12.2 and 2 Cor. 5.21: ‘Is he not good, who for your sake took on himself the form of a servant, and for the joy set before him did not shrink from bearing the sufferings due to your sin, and gave himself an exchange for your death, and became for our sakes a curse and sin?’ (Con. Eunom. 3.9.9.).102 Likewise, in his refutation of the Arian view of the subjection of the son to the father, Gregory Nazianzus in his Fourth Theological Oration refers to how Christ destroyed the curse on human beings originating in their sins, which is an unmistakable allusion to Gal. 3.13. He writes, ‘Who destroyed my curse; and sin, who takes away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so he makes my disobedience his own as head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ also is called disobedient on my account’ (Or. 30.5). Intertextually he joins Gal. 3.13 with Jn 1.28 ‘takes away the 98. Dial. 89 indicates that Jews in Justin’s time did not have an objection to a suffering Messiah, but only with a crucified Messiah, because this signifies that he is cursed by the Law. 99. Undermining the Pauline nature of the argument, however, Justin insists that Christ was not truly cursed by God according to Deut. 21.23 ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’, but only that those who crucified him thought that he was so cursed. 100. o#ti di' h(ma~j ou)de\ kata&ra kai_ a(marti/a gene/sqai a)pe/sxeto. 101. o( mh_ gnou_j a(marti/an u(pe_r h(mw~n a(marti/a gi/netai kai_ th~j kata&raj h(ma~j e0leuqeroi~ th_n h(mete/ran kata&ran. 102. Ou)k a)gaqo_j, o( dia_ se_ morfh_n dou&lou labw_n, kai_ a)nti\ th~j prokeime/nhj au)tw~| xara~j ta_ paqh&mata th~j sh_j a(marti/aj a)namaca&menoj, kai_ dou_j e9auto_n a)nata&llagma tou~ sou~ qana&tou, kai_ u(pe\r h(mw~n kata&ra kai_ a(marti/a geno&menoj;



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 121

sin of the world’ and Rom. 5.12-19 ‘new Adam’. It is clear that, for Gregory Nazianzus, Christ’s act of being cursed results in taking human disobedience on himself. In other words, he is cursed because of the sins of others are transferred to him. Similarly, Chrysostom explains that, when he says that Christ was made a curse for us, Paul does not mean that Christ in his essence, removing its proper glory, became cursed, which is absurd, but rather that he assumes the judicial status of being cursed: ‘He, taking upon himself the curse pronounced against us, leaves us no more under the curse’ (In Ioan. Hom. 11.2).103 This is parallel to the way that Christ became flesh without changing his divine essence to flesh. Hilary combines the idea of Christ becoming cursed with Christ as sacrifice. He interprets Ps. 53.6a ‘Willingly I will sacrifice to you’ messianically, claiming that only Christ could make such a statement since all human beings offer sacrifices under compulsion according to the stipulations of the Law (Tr. ps. 53 [54]). The sacrifice that Christ makes willingly is of himself, allowing himself to be cursed: ‘Thus he offered himself to the death of the accursed that he might break the curse of the Law, offering himself voluntarily a victim to God the father’. By referring to Christ as cursed, Hilary is alluding unmistakably to Gal. 3.13. He is then naturally led to the messianic interpretation of Ps. 40.6 ‘Sacrifice and offering you would not, but a body have you prepared for me’ in Heb. 10.5, which in turn prompts him to quote Heb. 7.27 ‘For this he did once for all when he offered himself up’. In dependence on Gal. 3.13, Hilary explains in this context that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. He writes, ‘It was from this curse that our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed us, when, as the apostle says: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree”’ (13). According to him, the incarnate Christ in his human nature voluntarily submitted to suffering and death in order to accomplish the mystery of the salvation of human beings. He explains that in so doing Christ satisfies the penal function (officio quidem ipsa satisfactura poenali) but without being harmed by that suffering because his divine nature precluded that possibility (12). He understands Christ’s death as a judicial satisfaction for sin by means of assuming its penalty consisting of his suffering and death. Ambrose comes under the influence of Gal. 3.12-13 in his description of the purpose of the incarnation (Fug. 7.44). He writes, ‘And so then, Jesus took flesh that he might destroy the curse of sinful flesh, and he became for us a curse that a blessing might overwhelm a curse, uprightness might overwhelm sin, forgiveness might overwhelm the sentence, and life might overwhelm death. He also took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and 103. th_n kaq' h(mw~n kata&ran deca&menoj ou)k a)fi/hsin h(ma~j e0para&touj ei{nai loipo&n.

122

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

satisfaction might be given for the judgment, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death.’ Galatians 3.13 is interpreted to mean that in his death Christ allows himself to be put under the sentence of death that is owed to human beings for their sins; he thereby provides satisfaction for the judgment against human beings. For Christ to provide satisfaction for the judgment (satisfieret iudicato) in this context means to assume the penalty against human beings who fall short of their obligations to God. To do so cancels the curse and brings forgiveness, blessing and life to human beings. Augustine argues that the death of Christ on a tree was real and for this reason he was genuinely cursed, just as Deut. 21.22-23 indicates. He makes it clear that Christ bears the curse of our offenses, which is death (C. Faust. 14.6). He adds that Christ died for us, and in dying on the cross he bore our punishment; the purpose of this was to abolish guilt and remove punishment. He writes, ‘Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, in order that he might cancel our guilt and do away with our punishment’.104 Augustine intertextually connects Gal. 3.13 and 2 Cor. 5.15 ‘He died for all’, and concludes that being cursed for all and dying for all are the same because death is the effect of the curse. In his interpretation of Ps. 22.1 (lxx 21), Theodoret intertextually brings together Jn 1.29, 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13, Heb. 12.2 and Isa. 53.5 (Interp. ps. 21.2). He takes the speaker of Ps. 22.1 to be Christ, who is asking God to grant salvation to human beings because of his suffering. Finally, quoting Gal. 3.13, John of Damascus explains that Christ assumed human nature in a natural and substantial manner, in order to appropriate in an apparent and relative manner humanity’s curse and dereliction (O.F. 3.25). Influenced by the designation of the cross as a tree, early Christian theologians interpret an alternative version of Ps. 96.10 as referring to Christ’s paradoxical reign by means of his crucifixion. lxx Ps. 95.10 has ‘The Lord reigned’ (o( ku/rioj e0basi/leusen), reflecting the original Hebrew (Klm  hwhy). Justin Martyr, however, quotes a longer version of the psalm, ‘The Lord reigned from the tree’ (a)po_ tou~ cu/lon), claiming that Jews falsified the text by removing the phrase ‘from the tree’ in order to obscure its prophetic nature (1 Apol 41; Dial. 73).105 The fuller version is also found in the Old Latin Version as preserved in the Psalterium Romanum (Dominus regnavit a ligno), and Tertullian also makes use of the verse in his dispute with Jewish detractors, along with several other scriptural passages (Adv. Iud. 10).106 He writes, ‘Come, now, if you have read in the utterance 104. Suscepit autem Christus sine reatu supplicium nostrum, ut inde solveret reatum nostrum, et fineret etiam supplicium nostrum. 105. Letter of Barnabas may also reflect this longer version: ‘that the kingdom of Jesus is on the cross’ (8.5). 106. See Augustine, En. ps. 96.2, 1; Div. qu. 69.9.



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 123

of the prophet in the Psalms, “God has reigned from the tree”, I wait to hear what you understand thereby; for fear you may perhaps think some carpenter-king is signified, and not Christ, who has reigned from that time onward when he overcame the death which ensued from his passion of the tree’ (10.11). The expression ‘the Lord reigns from a tree’ becomes part of the hymn ‘Vexilla regis prodeunt’ (‘The royal banners forward go’) by Venantius Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers. It is probable, however, that Justin’s version of Ps. 96.10 has been glossed by a Christian scribe and is not the original reading. 7. To Take Away Sins and i9lasmo&j for Sins The author of 1 John makes two affirmations about Christ: that he is without sin, and has appeared in human history in order to take away sins. He writes, ‘He appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin’.107 The latter is an explanation of the purpose of Christ’s appearance in human history: to take away sins (ta_j a(marti/aj ai!rein).108 The meaning of this statement, however, is ambiguous because the author does not explain in which sense sins are taken away. Twice in 1 John, Christ is said to be i9lasmo&j for sins: ‘i9lasmo&j for our sins and not just our sins but the sins of the whole world’ (2.2) and ‘i9lasmo&j for our sins’ (4.10). In the latter, it is said that Christ as i9lasmo&j is a manifestation of God’s love. The religious-historical background against which to understand the meaning of the term i9lasmo&j is the Hebrew Bible and its rendering into Greek by the lxx. The term is used to translate sinoffering (h)+x) in lxx Ezek. 44.27, which is to be offered by a priest who unavoidably has contracted corpse-uncleanness (see Lev. 5.3). A sin offering, which consists of a goat, lamb, two birds or a measure of flour, functions to remove the guilt of unintentional sins either for the whole community or, as in this case, for an individual (Lev. 4.1–5.13; 6.24-30). It is said that, when it is offered, the priest will expiate (rpk) for him and the sin will be forgiven him (wl xlsnw) (Lev. 5.10b). The term i9lasmo&j is also used in the lxx to mean expiation, translating Myrpk (lxx Lev. 25.9; Num. 5.8). Expiation is God’s covering over of sins, or forgiveness of them. In lxx Lev. 25.9 the Greek word is part of the phrase ‘Day of Atonement’ (th~| h9mera~| tou~ i9lasmou~); participation in this annual ritual is a means by 107. John uses the verb fanero&w in relation to Christ’s first appearance in the world (1.2; 3.5, 8) and his future appearance (2.28; 3.2). 108. B.F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John (Cambridge and London: MacMillan, 2nd edn, 1886), p. 103; Rudolf Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1973), pp. 50-51; Stephen Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John (WBC, 51; Waco, TX: Word, 1984), pp. 148-50.

124

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

which individual Israelites could be expiated (Exod. 30.10; Lev. 16; 23.2632; Num. 29.7-11). In addition, in lxx Num. 5.8 i9lasmo&j occurs in the phrase ‘ram of expiation’ (tou~ kriou~ tou~ i9lasmou~), by which a priest will expiate for someone who has defrauded another but can no longer make restitution since there are no living relatives.109 This sacrifice seems to be a guilt-offering (M#$)) (Lev. 5.14-16). The term i9lasmo&j is also used in the lxx to translate ‘forgiveness’ (hxyls) (Ps. 130.4; Dan 9.9). In these passages it refers to God’s forgiving of or being willing to forgive sin, and it occurs in conjunction with the related term ‘compassionate’ (Mxr) in Dan. 9.9. Finally, in 2 Macc. 3.32-33 the High Priest is said to make expiation (i9lasmo&j) for Heliodorus, which is said to be a sacrifice for his healing. Given this religious-historical background, to say Christ is i9lasmo&j for sins means that Christ is the means by which human beings are expiated in the sense of receiving forgiveness of sins.110 The implied object of the verbal noun i9lasmo&j is human beings and not God.111 Thus, contrary to its use in Greek literature generally, the meaning of i9lasmo&j is not propitiation in the sense of appeasing God or averting his anger,112 but rather expiation or forgiveness, although this is not necessarily to repudiate the concept of divine anger. Even though nothing is said about why this is so, taken in conjunction with 1 Jn 1.7 ‘the blood of Jesus his son cleanses us from all sin’, Christ is i9lasmo&j on account of his death. Athanasius may be influenced by 1 Jn 3.5 when he describes Christ’s purpose in coming ‘at the end of the ages’ as ‘for the abolishment of sin’ (ei)j a)qe/thsin th~j a(marti/aj) (Decr. 2 [5]). Although the terminology used is not the same, the idea expressed is parallel to what is found in 1 Jn 3.5: Christ comes into human history for the purpose of taking away sins. The Johannine assertion that Christ is i9lasmo&j for sins is also influential on the theologizing of the early church. Clement of Alexandria quotes 1 Jn 2.2 and adds that Christ ‘heals both our body and soul—which are the proper man’, the implication being that i9lasmo&j is a type of healing (Paedag. 3.12). In response to the criticism that Christians restrict God’s love to themselves alone, Origen asserts that ‘God loves all existing things, and loathes nothing 109. rpky / e0cila&setai. 110. This conclusion is reinforced by the use of the cognate e)0cilasmo&j in lxx Exod. 30.10 (Myrpk); Lev. 23.27-28 (Myrpk) (bis); 1 Chron. 28.11 (trpk); Ezek. 43.23 ()+x); 45.19 (h)+x). See also its occurrence of in 1 Esd. 9.20; Wis. 18.21; Sir. 5.5; 16.11; 17.29; 18.12, 20; 32 (35).3; 2 Macc. 12.45. 111. peri\ tw~n a(martiw~n h(mw~n. The use of the preposition peri/ + genitive in this case indicates ‘for’ or ‘in the matter of’ and so function to indicates the accusative of the verbal noun. 112. This is contrary to Hugo Grotius and others. It is improper methodology to assume that Jewish writers use a Greek word with its common meaning (A Defence of the Catholic Faith concerning the Satisfaction of Christ [Andover: Draper, 1889], pp. 141-46.



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 125

that he has made’ (Con. Cels. 4.28). He quotes Ps. 33.5, Sir. 18.13 and Mt. 5.45 as evidence that Christians do not hold such an exclusivist position. Origen continues that Christians are universalistic in their outlook, wanting all human beings to know the benefits that Christians enjoy. In this context, he quotes two more scriptures with a universalistic outlook: ‘For he himself is said to be the savior of all men, especially of them who believe (1 Tim. 4.10) and his Christ to be the ‘i9lasmo&j for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn 2.2)’. Following this, he quotes Rom. 5.8 and 5.7 to underscore his view that Christianity is not exclusivistic. He concludes, ‘But now is Jesus declared to have come for the sake of sinners in all parts of the world (that they may forsake their sin, and entrust themselves to God), being called also, agreeably to an ancient custom of these Scriptures, the “Christ of God”’ (4.28). In Augustine’s Old Latin version of 1 John, the word i9lasmo&j in 1 Jn 2.2 and 4.10 is not translated by the same Latin word, although Augustine does not seem to be aware of this. In 1 Jn 2.2, it is rendered as propitiator: ‘He is the propitiator for our sins’. Augustine interprets this to mean ‘advocate’ (advocatus) in the sense of one who pleads the case of another (Io. ep. tr. 1.7). In 1 Jn 4.10 the word i9lasmo&j is translated as litator, which Augustine takes to be synonymous with sacrificator. In his view, Christ is one who sacrificed for our sins. What Christ sacrificed, however, was not anything other than himself: ‘Where did he find the sacrifice? Where did he find the victim that he would offer pure? Other he found none; his own self he offered (seipsum obtulit)’ (7.9). It is likely that Augustine’s exegesis would have been different if he had access to the Greek text of 1 John. 8. Condemned Sin in the Flesh Using participationist language, Paul says that there is no condemnation for those who ‘are in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 8.1).113 He explains that the Law 113. The phrase ‘in Christ Jesus’ is a typical Pauline way of expressing that there is a spiritual union between the believer and Christ. In addition to saying that Christ is in (e0n) the believer (Rom. 8.10; 2 Cor. 13.5; Col. 1.27; 3.11) or that Christ dwells in the hearts of believers (katoike/sai…e0n tai~j kardi/aij) (Eph. 3.17), Paul refers to being in Christ (Jesus) (e0n xristw~| ('Ihsou~) (see Rom. 8.1; 12.5; 2 Cor. 5.17; Eph. 2.13), to living in Christ (e0n xristw~)| (Col. 2.6), and to being found in him [Christ] (Phil. 3.9) (eu(reqw~ e)n au)tw~|), all of which are spatial metaphors intended to express the spiritual union that exists between the believer and Christ: the believer is situated Christ. Similarly, the apostle speaks about being clothed with Christ (Xristo_n e0nedu&sasqe) (Gal. 3.27), and about Christ’s being formed in believers (morfwqh~| Xristo_j e0n u(mi~n) (Gal. 4.19). Paul also writes about being called into fellowship (ei0j koinwni/an) with Christ (1 Cor. 1.9), about being of Christ (Xristou~) (2 Cor. 10.7; Gal. 5.24), about learning Christ (e0ma&qete to_n Xristo&n) (Eph. 4.20), about knowing Christ (Phil. 3.8 th~j gnw&sewj Xristou~;

126

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

could not make anyone righteous because it was weakened by the ‘flesh’, by which is meant that, because of the sinful nature or inherent inability to obey God, human beings could not make use of the Law as an instrument by which to make themselves righteous (8.3).114 As a result, God sent his son who appeared in the likeness of ‘flesh’, meaning that he appeared as a human being, so that ‘flesh’ in this clause means not sinful nature but human nature as corporeal. God sent his son ‘for sin’ (peri\ a(marti/aj), or, in other words, because of or on account of sin, by condemning sin in the flesh. The phrase could also be translated ‘for a sin-offering’.115 God’s condemning sin in the flesh means that he condemned his son as sinful in the place of those who were actually sinned. Origen interprets God’s condemning sin in the flesh as Christ’s becoming a sacrifice for sin. He writes, ‘That Christ is a sacrifice for sin and was offered for the cleansing of sins, all scriptures testify’ (Comm. Rom. 6.12).116 Some of those scriptures are Isa. 53.4; Rom. 8.32; Heb. 7.27; 9.26. In combination with other scriptural texts, Athanasius insightfully uses Rom. 8.1, 3 in order to explain the purpose of the incarnation against the Arians; he makes it explicit that for the son, or the Word, to be in the likeness of flesh is to become incarnate (Ar. 1.60; 2.55). He argues that, without assuming flesh, Christ could not have condemned sin in the flesh, as Paul expresses it (Rom. 8.3). He brings Rom. 8.9; 2 Cor. 3.7-11; Jn 1.17; 3.17; Heb. 2.1415; 1 Cor. 15.21 to bear intertextually on his interpretation of Rom. 8.1, 3, fluidly moving from one text to another. According to him, the result of condemning sin in the flesh is that transgression is removed from it.117 The meaning of this obscure statement is clarified by a later interpretive comment on Rom. 8.3 and the other scriptures cited: ‘Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on himself the judgment (ei)j e9auto_n e0de/cato to_ kri=ma), and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all’. His point is that by his death Christ takes to himself from human beings the judgment of sin that they deserve, with the result that they receive salvation instead (1.60). Christ also abolishes death at the same time.118 Phil. 3.10 tou~ gnw~nai au)to_n; Col. 2.2 ei)j e0pi/gnwsin tou~… Xristou~), and about gaining Christ (i3na Xristo_n kerdh&sw) (Phil. 3.8). These also serve to convey the idea of a spiritual union between Christ and the believer. 114. See Smeaton, Doctrine of the Atonement, pp. 167-84. 115. See lxx Isa. 53.10; Lev. 4.35; 5.6; 6.17. 116. Quod hostia pro peccato factus sit Christus, et oblatus sit pro purgation peccatorum omnes scripturae testantur. 117. e0ksth&saj a)p’ au)th~j to_ para&ptwma. 118. God also grants freedom from the power of sin as a consequence of condemning sin in the flesh, so that it becomes possible to fulfil the righteousness of the Law (Rom. 8.4) (1.51).



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 127

9. Being Made Sin Referring to Christ’s death, Paul writes in 2 Cor. 5.21, ‘He [God] made him who knew no sin to be sin for us’.119 To know sin is a Semitism meaning to be acquainted with sin insofar as one has committed sin.120 Paul’s point is that Christ, who was sinless, was made to be sinful by God insofar as there was a transfer of sins from human beings to himself.121 In other words, there is an exchange of judicial statuses between sinners and Christ who is sinless. This act was ‘for us’, by which Paul means for the benefit of human beings. Some exegetes argue that Paul is interpreting Christ’s death in light of the fourth servant song (Isa. 52-53).122 In this case, to make Christ ‘sin’ is to make him ‘an offering for sin’, just as in Isa. 53.10 the servant is given as a guilt offering (M#$)), which is translated in the lxx as ‘for sin’ (peri\ a(marti/aj). There are no strong linguistic parallels between 2 Cor. 5.21 and Isa. 53, however, which suggests that the latter was not the religioushistorical background against which the former is to be interpreted.123 The early church fathers clarify Paul’s meaning in 2 Cor. 5.21, intertextually connecting it insightfully with other scriptural passages. Origen comments on this passage in the context of exegeting Caiaphas’s prophecy that Jesus will die for the people (Jn 11.49-50). Drawing upon Isa. 53.4, 1 Pet. 2.22 and 2 Cor. 5.21a ‘him who knew no sin’ to prove that Christ was sinless, he quotes from 2 Cor. 5.21b ‘He…made him sin’, which he paraphrases to mean that Christ received the sin of all into himself, in the sense of a transfer of sins to himself (Comm. Jn. 28.14).124 Gregory of Nyssa cites 2 Cor. 5.21 in his explanation of the purpose of the incarnation (Con. Eunom. 3.4.46). He writes, ‘Just as he who knew not sin becomes sin, in order that he may take away the sin of the world’.125 He intertextually interprets Christ’s becoming sin in 2 Cor. 5.21 in light of Jn 1.29 and 1 Jn 3.5 as meaning the taking away of sin resulting in the forgiveness of sins. Similarly, under the influence of 2 Cor. 5.21, Gal. 3.13, Jn 1.29 and Rom. 5.1219, Gregory Nazianzus refers to an exchange of statuses between Christ 119. to_n mh_ gno&nta a(marti/an u(pe_r h(mw~n a(marti/an e0poi&hsen. 120. H. Windisch, Der zweiter Korintherbrief (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9th edn, 1924), p. 198. 121. See Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement, pp. 221-32. 122. S. Lyonnet and S. Sabourin, Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study (AB, 48; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), pp. 248-55; R.P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC, 40; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986), pp. 140, 156-58; Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, rev. edn, 1963), p. 76. 123. R. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1954), p. 57. 124. ta_j pa&ntwn a(marti/aj a)neilhqe/nai. 125. w#sper ou{n o( mh_ gnou_j a(marti&an, a(marti&a gi/netai, i3na a!rh| th_n a(marti/an tou~ ko&smou.

128

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

and sinners. He writes, ‘For my sake he was called a curse, who destroyed my curse; and sin, who takes away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so he makes my disobedience his own as head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ also is called disobedient on my account’ (Or. 30.5). He even goes as far as saying that Christ became sin itself and the curse itself (au)toamarti&a kai_ au)tokata&ra) (Or. 37.1), combining 2 Cor. 5.21 with Gal. 3.13. In his exegesis of 2 Cor. 5.20-21, Chrysostom asserts that God’s love for human beings was so great that he even surrendered his son, knowing that he would be killed (In ep. ad 2 Cor. Hom. 11.5). He explains that for Christ to be made sin means that ‘he suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed, to die’. He then cites Gal. 3.13 ‘for cursed is he who hangs on a tree’ as interpretive of 2 Cor. 5.21. Christ, being righteous, both dies for sinners and allows himself to be cursed. He also quotes Phil. 2.8 ‘obedient unto death, even the death of the cross’ in order to clarify the meaning of 2 Cor. 5.21. Chrysostom remarks that it is significant that Paul writes not that Christ was made a sinner (a(martolo&j) but was made sin (a(marti/a), which is for him is a much more severe statement. As a result of being made sin, Christ makes it possible for human beings to become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5.21c). He explains, ‘For this is [the righteousness] of God, when we are justified not by works…but by grace, in which case all sin is done away’ (Hom. 11.5).126 To be the righteousness of God is synonymous with being justified by grace. For Cyril of Alexandria, to be made sin is to suffer what is owing to the greatest of sinners; this is what it means to be justified in Christ. He understands Christ’s dying for all as making him the equivalent of all, in the sense of doing something that affects all: ‘For one died for all being the equivalent of all’ (In ep. II ad Cor.).127 Similarly, he interprets 2 Cor. 5.21 in judicial terms by asserting that Christ ‘received the punishment of sinners’ (De Inc. Domini 27)128 and that, since Christ suffered for human beings, God can no longer demand the penalty for our sins (De adorat. in sp. et ver. 3).129 Ambrose explains the meaning of ‘was made sin’ as ‘bearing sin’, which is an allusion to Isa. 53.4 (Exp. ps. 118 18.42).130 He understands Paul’s statement in Rom. 8.3 to be parallel to 2 Cor. 5.21: to condemn sin means the 126. qeou~ ga/r e0stin au#th, o#tan mh_ e0c e2rgwn…a)ll' a)po_ xa/ritoj dikaiwqw&men. 127. ei{j ga_r u(pe\r pa&ntwn a)pe/qanen o( pa&ntwn a)nta&cioj 128. th_n tw~n a(martwlw~n katede/ato timapi/an 129. w(j e0ktetiko&twn h(mw~n e0n au)tw~| tw~| xristw~| tw~n ei)j a(marti/an ai)tiama&twn ta_j di/kaj. 130. Ideo peccatum fecit Christum suum omnipotens Pater. Hominem fecit, qui peccata nostra portaret.



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 129

same as being made sin (Enarr. in ps. 37.6). Finally, like Ambrose, Augustine explains the phrase ‘in respect to sin, he condemned sin’ in Rom. 8.3 to mean the same as what Paul writes in 2 Cor. 5.21 ‘He made him to be sin for us’. In both cases he says that what Paul means is that Christ is a sacrifice for sin. He writes, ‘But this passage…does not seem to me to be more fittingly understood than that Christ was made a sacrifice for sins, and on this account was called “sin”’ (C. ep. pel. 3.16).131 Presumably, in Augustine’s view, there is a complete exchange of identities between the one who sacrifices and his sacrifice, so that, if Christ is a sacrifice for sin, then he becomes sin. A synonymous expression is that Christ shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins.132 Augustine also interprets 2 Cor. 5.21 in light of Rom. 8.3 in his Enchiridion, again identifying Christ’s death as a sacrifice as well as a means of reconciliation. He writes, ‘The God to whom we are to be reconciled has thus made him the sacrifice for sin by which we may be reconciled’ (Enchir. 41).133 10. Christ as Bronze Snake In his dialogue with Nicodemus in the Gospel of John, Jesus states, ‘Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the son of man must be lifted up, in order that all who believe in him will have eternal life’ (3.14-15). He interprets an event from the history of the Israelites as typological of the soteriological benefit that his death will bring. Jesus’ use of the term ‘the son of man’ in this saying is self-referential, and being lifted up is an oblique allusion to his crucifixion (see the use of u(yo&w in Jn 8.28; 12.32, 34). In Num. 21.6-9 many Israelites are dying after being bitten by ‘fiery’ or venomous snakes. As a remedy, God instructs Moses to make a bronze replica of a snake, attach it to a pole and lift it up for everyone to see. When, after being bitten by a snake, he looks at the bronze snake, an Israelite would recover from the bite and live. By means of this typology, Jesus asserts that his death by being crucified will provide eternal life for human beings. The tertium comparationis between Jesus and the bronze snake lifted up on a pole is that, like the latter, Jesus’ ‘being lifted up’, insofar as he is crucified, will give (eternal) life to all who ‘look at’ him in the sense of believing in him. Looking at a physical object such as the bronze snake is typological of faith because both require an act of the will.134 Jesus also indicates that his 131. Christum factum sacrificium pro peccatis. 132. Factum est ut sanguinem suum in remissionem funderet peccatorum. 133. Pro nobis peccatum fecit Deus, cui reconciliandi sumus, hoc est, sacrificium pro peccatis, per quod reconciliari valeremus. 134. It should be noted note, however, that ‘being lifted up’ can also have the meaning of ‘being exalted or glorified’, so that ironically Jesus’ death is also his exaltation.

130

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

being ‘lifted up’ is necessary (dei~), implying that it is divinely ordained for him. In his typological interpretation, Jesus, however, does not explain how his death is the source of eternal life, but only that it is. In light of the later idolatrous use of the bronze serpent (2 Kgs 18.4), second-Temple Jewish tradition emphasizes that it was not the object itself that saved from death but God, who made looking upon the bronze serpent a condition of being saved (Wis. 16.6-7). In early rabbinic tradition, the looking upon the bronze serpent was interpreted as symbolic of looking ‘up’ towards God in readiness to obey the Torah (m. Rosh Hash. 3.8). Early Christian commentators draw further soteriological insights from Jesus’ typological interpretation of the narrative of the bronze snake.135 Their goal is to bring out what is implied in Jesus’ typological comparison, and most of these extrapolations are at least not contrary to Jesus’ original intention. The author of the Letter of Barnabas connects the venomous snakes with the snake in the garden that deceived Eve and brought death (12.5). Cyril of Alexandria claims that Jn 3.14 is one of the passages in the scriptures that Jesus believes testifies to himself: ‘Moses, showing that search of history is most necessary, and all but saying to this man of no understanding, “Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of me” (Jn 11.32)’ (Comm. in evang. Ioan. 3.14-15). He interprets Jesus’ saying in light of Jn 1.1 and Rom. 8.3: ‘The Word of God then was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, that he might condemn sin in the flesh, as it is written’. He also understands the fact that the pole was lifted up as symbolizing Jesus’ public manifestation as crucified, which is in accordance with what Jesus says about his being ‘lifted up’ in Jn 12.32: ‘But the serpent being fixed upon a lofty base, signifies that Christ was altogether clear and manifest, so as to be unknown to none, or his being lifted up from the earth, as himself says, by his passion on the cross’ (Comm. in evang. Ioan. 3.1415). Based on the typology, John Chrysostom argues from minor to major, ‘Now if the Jews, by looking to the bronze image of a serpent, escaped death, much rather will they who believe on the crucified, with good reason enjoy a far greater benefit’ (In Ioan. Hom 27). Extrapolating from Jesus’ original typology, Cyril of Jerusalem concludes that, because the bronze snake on a pole and Jesus on a cross both The Aramaic underlying the Greek u(poqh~nai is probably the Ithpeel or Ithpaal of Pqz, which likewise has the double meaning of being hanged or crucified and being exalted (C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978], pp. 9, 214; Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946], p. 103). 135. Justin says that the text indicates a mystery (musth&rion) (Dial. 94), what Augustine calls a sacramentum (Io. ev. tr. 12.11). What is meant is a symbolic depiction of Christ that is only understood in retrospect.



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 131

save, ‘on each occasion life comes by means of wood’ (Cat. lect. 13.20).136 Similarly, Tertullian sees the manner in which the snake was affixed to the pole as typological of Jesus’ crucifixion: ‘placed on a ‘tree’, in a hanging posture’ (Adv. Iud. 10.10). The biting snakes are said to symbolize the sins from which human beings need to be healed. His use of the term ‘tree’ (lignum) allows a connection with Gal. 3.13 ‘Cursed in the one who hangs on a tree’. Although he understands the serpent affixed to the pole as typological of Jesus on the cross, Tertullian also confusedly identifies the serpent as the devil and the venomous snakes as his angels: ‘Exhibiting the Lord’s cross on which the “serpent” the devil was “made a show of ”, and, for every one hurt by such snakes—that is, his angels’ (Adv. Iud. 10.10). Similarly, according to Justin Martyr, the healing from the venomous snakes bites is said to be a sign that Jesus ‘would break the power of the snake that occasioned the transgression of Adam’ (Dial. 94).137 The same is true for Augustine: ‘For as death came by the serpent, it was figured by the image of a serpent’ (Io. ev. tr. 12.11). As already indicated, this results in confusion because the bronze snake on the pole primarily symbolizes Jesus on the cross. Finally, Augustine develops an extensive interpretation of the symbolism of the bronze snake. He identifies the bronze snake lifted up with Christ as crucified, and concludes that the person who ‘is conformed to the likeness of the death of Christ by faith in him and his baptism is freed both from sin by justification, and from death by resurrection’ (Pecc. mer. 1.61 [32]). Similarly, he makes an intertextual connection between Jn 12.32 and 1 Cor. 15.54, by explaining typologically what it means to look upon the snake: ‘But in Christ’s death, death died. Life slew death; the fullness of life swallowed up death; death was absorbed in the body of Christ. So also shall we say in the resurrection, when now triumphant we shall sing, “Where, O death, is your contest? Where, O death, is your sting?”’ (Io. ev. tr. 12.11). 11. Cancelling Debt Using words and expressions unparalleled in his other letters, Paul undertakes in Col. 2.13b-14 to explain the nature of the salvation-historical significance of Christ’s death: ‘He made you alive together with him [Christ], having forgiven us all our transgressions, having destroyed completely the certificate of indebtedness because of the regulations that stood against us; and he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross’. Paul begins 136. pa&ntote dia_ cu&lou h( zwh&. 137. Because of its typological significance, Justin Martyr claims that making the bronze snake is an exception to the prohibition against making idolatrous images (Exod. 20.4) (Dial. 94).

132

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

by describing how God ‘forgave all our transgressions’ (2.13b). Although he uses to verb xari/zesqai with the meaning of ‘to forgive’ elsewhere in his letters (2 Cor. 2.7, 10; 12.13; Eph. 4.32), he uses it with ‘transgressions’ (paraptw&mata) as its object only in Col. 3.13b. Transgressions are acts of disobedience, for which a person is culpable (see Gal. 6.1; 2 Cor. 5.17; Rom. 4.25; 5.16). Paul uses the metaphor of the cancellation of a debt to explain why forgiveness of transgressions is possible: ‘Having destroyed completely the certificate of indebtedness that stood against us’ (3.14).138 A certificate of indebtedness (xeiro&grafon) is a record of outstanding financial debt (see Tob. 5.3; 9.5); used metaphorically, it refers to the outstanding debt of obedience to God that has not been paid.139 He interprets Christ’s death as the means by which this record of debt was completely destroyed, thus freeing the sinner from its obligation. This is the basis of being forgiven of transgressions. Paul adds the qualifying phrase ‘because of the regulations’ (toi~j do&gmasin) (instrumental dative) to explain why there exists a certificate of debt in the first place. (There is the implied participle ‘having been written’ for the adverbial phrase ‘because of regulations’ to modify.) By ‘regulations’ Paul means the commandments of the Law (see the somewhat redundant phrase in Eph. 2.15: ‘the Law of the commandments in regulations’).140 In other words, insofar as it is the will of God for them, the Law puts human beings in a situation of indebtedness in relation to God. Paul is addressing a largely gentile readership, so that it may seems strange that he speaks of them as being indebted to God ‘because of the regulations’. Although only the Jews had the Law, Paul no doubt would argue that their experience was representative of human experience generally; or he could be referring not only to the Mosaic Law but the law written on the heart (Rom. 2.15). Finally, Paul says that God set aside the certificate of indebtedness, that it was nailed to the cross. His point is that Christ’s death is the means by which the debt of obedience to God is canceled insofar as in his death he assumes the penalty of that debt. The use of the metaphor

138. The phrases ‘that stood against us’ (to_ kaq’ h(mw~n) and ‘which was against us’ (o$ h]n u(penanti/on h(mi=n) are parallel in meaning. 139. E. Lohse, TDNT 9.435; P. O’Brien, Colossians and Philemon (WBC, 44; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), p. 125. Contrary to A.J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1964), pp. 158-63; R.P. Martin, ‘Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Colossians’, in R. Banks (ed.), Reconciliation and Hope (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1974), pp. 104-24; W. Carr, Angels and Principalities (SNTMS, 42; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 52-66. 140. In Hellenistic Judaism, the term ‘regulations’ is used to denote the commandments of the Law; see Josephus, Apion 1.42; Ant. 15.136; Philo, De gig. 52; Leg. all. 1.54-55; 3 Macc. 1.3.



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 133

of crucifixion with Christ is used by him in other contexts also (Gal. 5.24; 6.14).141 The early church fathers understand Col. 2.13b-14 as referring to the forgiveness of sins made possible by the payment of the debt of obedience through Christ’s suffering and death. They make intertextual connections to other scriptures. Irenaeus intertextually connects Rom. 4.6-8 (Ps. 32.1-2) ‘Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven’ etc. to Col. 2.14 ‘destroyed completely the certificate of indebtedness’ and ‘having nailed it to the cross’, considering them as coordinate in meaning (Adv. haer. 5.17.3). In his view, the latter text likewise refers to the forgiveness of sins: ‘pointing out thus that remission of sins which follows upon his advent’.142 He then explains that by the first tree, the one from which Adam ate, human beings were made debtors to God, whereas by the second tree, the cross of Christ, they obtained forgiveness from that debt. As Paul intends, he compares sin to a debt owed to God and forgiveness as the cancellation of that debt. He writes, ‘And forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to God our Creator’.143 Origen intertextually connects 1 Jn 2.2 ‘propitiation for sin’ with Col. 2.13: ‘having destroyed completely the certificate of indebtedness that stood against us’, and concludes that the purpose of both is ‘that not the slightest trace of the sins committed might remain’ the removal of all human sins, by which is meant forgiveness. In his commentary on this passage, Chrysostom elaborates on what Paul writes by explaining that Christ’s death was the suffering of punishment for the sins of human beings. He writes, ‘He himself, through suffering punishment, did away with both the sin and the punishment, and he was punished on the cross’ (In ep. ad Col. Hom. 6.3).144 Finally, under the influence of Col. 2.13-14, Hilary writes, ‘But he quickened us also together with him, forgiving us our sins, blotting out the bond of the law of sin, which through the ordinances made aforetime was against us, taking it out of the way, and fixing it to his cross’ (De Trin. 9.10; see Tr. ps. 129.9). He understands the Pauline text to refer to forgiveness of sins. Ambrose alludes to Col. 2.13-15 when he asserts that Christ, ‘took away the handwriting…freed the debtor, alone paid that which was owed by all’ (De Patr. 4). In his view human beings owed a debt, but could not pay it, since as Isa. 50.1 indicates, ‘You were sold for your iniquities’. The sale of the patriarch Joseph into slavery in Egypt is said to be a type of human slavery to sin. He explains that, by means of his death, Christ pays the debt 141. See Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), pp. 108-11; P. Porkorny, Colossians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 134-41; J.B. Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon (London: MacMillan, 1892), pp. 186-89. 142. Eam, quae per adventum eius est, remissionem praemonstrans. 143. Et remittat nobis debita nostra, quae factori nostro debemus Deo. 144. au)to_j kolasqei_j e1luse kai_ th_n a(marti/an kai_ th_n ko&lasin: e0kola&sqh de_ e0n tw~| staurw~|.

134

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

that human beings owe. In his view, because it was not owed, Christ’s death becomes the means by which the debt owed by human beings is paid. He writes, ‘And so by his own blood he redeemed those whom their own sins had sold. But Christ, sold by undertaking a condition, is not held by the price of a fault and sin, because he committed no sin. He contracted the debt at our price, not by his own expenditure’. Arguing against Sabellianism, Ambrose further explains that it was the son, not the father, who ‘blotted out the handwriting, also nailed it to the cross’, which is an allusion to Col. 2.13-14. He clarifies that it was through Christ’s suffering and death that this effect was achieved: ‘He too nailed the handwriting of the record to his cross, in that he was crucified, and suffered in the body’ (De fide 3.2.13-24). Ambrose exceeds what Paul writes, however, insofar as he implies that the debt was owed to Satan and not to God by his claim that Christ ‘removed the usurer’ (seneratorem removit). Augustine also makes passing reference to Col. 2.13-15 in his explanation of the nature of the soteriological benefit made possible by Christ’s death. He writes that the devil wrongly thought himself superior to Christ, not recognizing that he voluntarily consented to being made ‘a little lower than the angels’ (Ps. 8.5 in Heb. 2.5-9) (De Trin. 4.13[17]). The devil unjustly puts him to death, but only to be overcome by Christ. As a result, those justly held captive by Satan are freed: ‘And free us from a captivity that was just on account of sin, by blotting out the handwriting, and redeeming us who were to be justified although sinners, through his own righteous blood unrighteously poured out’.145 For Augustine, blotting out the handwriting, which derives from Col. 2.14, is equivalent to being redeemed and being justified, and all of these are possible because of Christ’s death.146 12. Price Paid and Ransom Making use of a commercial metaphor, the New Testament sometimes asserts that Christ’s death is a price paid. Twice in 1 Corinthians, Paul tells his readers that that they were bought with a price, by which is meant Christ’s death (1 Cor. 6.20; 7.23).147 His point is that Christ’s death is metaphorically what was paid in order to make it possible for human beings to receive the soteriological benefit that Paul describes in different ways in his letters. Because they were bought with a price, Paul exhorts the Corinthi145. Nosque liberaret a captiuitate propter peccatum iusta suo iusto sanguine iniuste fuso mortis chirographum delens et iustificandos redimens peccatores. 146. Luigi Gioia, The Theological Epistemology of Augustine's De Trinitate (Oxford Theological Monographs; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 83-97. 147. 1 Cor. 6.20 ‘You were bought at a price’ (h)gora&sqhte ga_r timh~j) (a)gora&zw); 1 Cor. 7.23 ‘You were bought at a price’ (timh~j h)gora&sqhte) (a)gora&zw).



4.   Other Expressions of the Soteriological Benefit of Christ’s Death 135

ans to live according to the will of God, since in a sense they do not own themselves any longer.148 A similar statement is made in Rev. 5.9: ‘With your blood you bought for God…people’,149 and Peter refers to the possibility of human beings ‘denying the master who bought them’ (2 Pet. 2.1).150 Along the same lines, in Acts 20.28 Paul says that Christ acquired for himself the church of God ‘by means of his own blood’.151 He means that the church is established on the basis of the death of Christ. Related to this is Paul’s reference in 1 Tim. 2.6 to Christ as a ransom (a)nti/lutron): ‘who [Christ Jesus] gave himself as a ransom for all’.152 His intention is to describe Christ’s death metaphorically as the price paid in order to redeem or buy back human beings, something that human beings could not do for themselves. He includes in the same context a reference to Christ Jesus as the one mediator between God and human beings; presumably his function as ransom qualifies him as such (1 Tim. 2.5). The early church fathers provide further insight into the idea of Christ’s death as a price paid and a ransom. In continuity with Mk 10.45, the author of the Letter of Diognetus writes that God himself received our sins and gave his own son as a ransom for us (lu&tron u(pe\r h(mw~n) (9.2). In apposition to this statement and explicative of its meaning, it is added ‘the righteous one for the unrighteous, the incorruptible one for the corruptible, the immortal one for them that are mortal’, referring to Christ (see 1 Pet. 3.18). Similarly, the author says that Christ as a ransom is an exchange (a)ntallagh&) and covers human sin with his righteousness. In summary, the author of the Letter of Diognetus holds that, insofar as he dies, Christ serves as a ransom, taking the place of human beings and thereby enabling them to be forgiven. Clement of Alexandria asserts that with his own death Christ paid for a Christian’s death, which was owed because of former sins and unbelief (Dives 23).153 Similarly, Athanasius explains that there was the debt (to_ o)feilo&menon) that needed to be paid on behalf of all human beings and that the incarnate Word, the only-begotten son of the father, died as a sacrifice in order ‘to settle man’s account and free him from the primal transgression’ (Incarn. 20.2, see 20.5 ‘that the debt of all might be paid’).154 148. 1 Cor. 6.20: ‘Therefore glorify God in your body’; 1 Cor. 7.23: ‘Do not become slaves of men’. 149. kai_ h)go&rasaj tw~| qew~| e0n tw~| ai#mati sou…e1qnouj. 150. to_n a)gora&nsanta au)tou_j despo&thn a)rnou&menoi. 151. th_n e0kklhsi/an, h$n periepoih&sato dia_ tou~ ai#matoj tou~ i0di/ou. 152. o( dou_j e9auto_n a)nti/lutron u(pe_r pa&ntwn. 153. u(pe\r sou~ pro_j to_n qa&naton dihgwnisa&mhn kai\ to_n so_n e0ce/tisa qa&naton, o$n w!feilej e0pi\ toi~j prohmarthme/noij kai\ th~| pro_j qeo_n a)pisti/a|. 154. kai\ u(pe\r pa&ntwn th_n qusi/an a)ne/feren, a)nti\ pa&ntwn to_n e9autou~ nao_n ei0j qa&naton paradidou&j, i3na tou_j me\n pa&ntaj a)nupeuqu&nouj kai\ e0leuqe/rouj th~j a)rxai/aj paraba&sewj poih&she.

136

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

According to him, ‘paying the debt in our place’ was one of the works for which the Word became incarnate (Ar. 2.21).155 All human beings owed a debt consisting of death because of the sin of the first man; Christ’s death is the payment of that debt. For this reason, his death is called an ‘offering of exchange’156 (9.1), ‘a substitute for all’157 (9.2) and ‘a sufficient interchange for all’158 (9.1). He also calls Christ’s death a ransom (lu&tron) (21.7; 25.3; see Ar. 1.45) and says that by his death Christ ransoms (lutro&w) all (25.4) or the sins of all (40.2). Based on 1 Tim. 2.6 ‘a ransom for all’, Cyril of Jerusalem argues from minor to major that, if Phineas stayed the wrath of God by killing another, how much more will Christ who ‘gave up himself for a ransom, put away the wrath which is against mankind’ (Cat. lect. 13.2).159 He therefore adds the idea that the reason for which Christ served as a ransom was that God is angry with human beings. Gregory of Nyssa states that Christ gave himself as a ransom for human beings (Perf. 8.1.185). Similarly, Basil says that Christ gave himself as a ransom to death for human beings (Epist. 261.2) and that the blood of Christ shed for us was a ‘single ransom (lutrw&sij) sufficient for all human beings’ (Hom. Ps. 61.3). Gregory Nazianzus states that Christ is called redemption because he frees the world from the captivity of sin insofar as he gave himself as a ransom for the cleansing of the world (Or. 30.20).160 In his view, the function of Christ as redemption and ransom is to cleanse the world, by which is meant to remove sins. Commenting on 1 Tim. 2.6, Chrysostom explains that the meaning of Christ as a ransom is that Christ was punished instead of human beings. He writes, ‘God was about to punish them, but he did not do it. They were about to perish, but in their place he gave his son’ (In ep. ad 1 Tim. Hom. 7.3).161 Elsewhere he describes the soteriological benefit of Christ’s death as paying a debt (In ep. ad Eph. Hom. 5.3). Likewise, commenting on Rom. 5.17, he says that Christ has paid the debt owed by human beings: ‘For Christ has paid down far more than we owe, indeed as much more as the illimitable ocean is than a little drop’ (In ep. ad Rom. Hom. 10.2). Finally, in his interpretation of Jn 18.7-9, Cyril of Alexandria asserts that for Jesus as the good shepherd to lay down his life for his sheep is to be a ransom (a)nti/lutron) (Comm. in evang. Ioan. 11). 155. a)nq' h(mw~n th_n o)feilh_n a)podidou_j. 156. th~| prosfora~| tou~ katallh/lou. 157. a)nti/yuxon u(pe_r pa&ntwn. 158. metalabo_n a)nti\ pa&ntwn i9kano_n. 159. e9auto_n a)nti/lutron paradou_j, a}ra th_n o)rgh_n ou) lu&ei th_n kata_ tw~n a)nqrw&pwn; 160. a)polu&trwsij de_, w(j e0leuqerw~nh(ma~j u(po_ th~j a(marti/aj katexome/nouj, kai_ lu&tron e9auto_n a)nti didou_j h(mw~n th~j oikoume/nhj kaqa&rsion. 161. e1melle timwrei~sqai au)tou&j: tou~to ou)k e0poi&hsen. a)po&llusqai e1mellon: a)ll' a)nt' e0kei&nwn to_n au)tou~ e1dwken Ui9on_ .

Chapter 5

Christ’s Death as Means of Deliverance from Dominion of Satan In the New Testament, Christ’s death is said to be the means by which the defeat of Satan and spiritual beings under his authority comes about, what Gustaf Aulén calls the ‘dramatic’ or ‘classic’ type of theory of the atonement.1 The result of this defeat is that human beings obtain deliverance from the dominion of Satan, which is closely associated with being forgiven of sins and being freed from death.2 This interpretation of the salvationhistorical benefit resulting from Christ’s suffering and death is reiterated and further developed by early Christian theologians. 1. Protoevangelium While it may first appear to be an exceptional animal by virtue of having the property of intelligent speech, the snake in the Genesis narrative (Gen. 3.15) is later identified in scripture as Satan (Rev. 12.9; 20.2; see 2 Cor. 11.3; Rev. 12.14-15).3 Presumably, it is in order to conceal his identity that he makes use of a snake as an instrument by which to communicate with Eve. God pronounces judgment against the snake that deceived Eve, which is really judgment against Satan. It is said that there will be enmity between the woman and the snake and between its seed and that of the woman. The snake will strike at the heel of woman’s seed, and it in turn will strike at the head of the seed of the snake. The term ‘seed’ in Genesis can refer to an immediate descendant or can be a collective noun denoting distant offspring 1. Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor (New York: Macmillan, 1969). 2. Some modern advocates of the Christus Victor theory of the atonement demythologize demonic oppression as systemic forces operating on a super-human level producing evil, unjust social realities, such as racism, nationalism and patriarchalism. See Gregory Boyd, ‘Christus Victor View’, in James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (eds.), The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), pp. 23-49; Paul Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation (Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1988), pp. 112-39. Such views, however, can make no claim to being biblical. 3. ‘The ancient snake called the devil and Satan, who leads the whole world astray’.

138

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

or a group of descendants.4 The seed of the snake probably refers to evil human beings, those who have Satan as their father (see Jn 8.44). The seed of the woman, if understood as parallel to the seed of the snake, would refer not to all of Eve’s descendants but to the righteous only. A mutual antipathy between the wicked and the righteous characterized by perpetual conflict is thereby foretold. The Targumic tradition, however, finds a sensus plenior for Gen. 3.15.5 The seed of the woman is understood as referring to the Messiah, who will have dominion over Satan, symbolized by the snake, in ‘the days of king Messiah’. This same messianic interpretation is adopted by some early Christian theologians, and is sometimes referred to as the protoevangelium (first good news). 2. New Testament It is clear that even before his rejection and execution Jesus understands his salvation-historical role as dismantling the Kingdom of Satan. He gives to his disciples authority over ‘all the power of the enemy’, by which he means Satan, and that the exorcisms that they perform are a sign of the inception of the Kingdom of God.6 In this context, Jesus tells his disciples that he ‘saw Satan fall, like lightning, from heaven’ (Lk. 10.18). By falling from heaven7 he is referring to Satan’s overthrow or removal from power, which is expressed as ‘like lightning’ insofar as it is instantaneous.8 Jesus explains his exorcist activity as an attack on the kingdom of Beelzebul.9 He says, ‘If I cast out demons by the “Spirit” (Matthew) or “finger” (Luke) of God,10 then 4. Gen. 9.9; 12.7; 13.16; 15.5, 13, 18; 16.10; 17.7-10, 12; 21.12; 22.17-18. 5. Targum Yerushalmi, Targum Neofiti and Fragmentary Targum. 6. Rudolf Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1938), pp. 97-107; Werner G. Kümmel, Promise and Fulfilment (SBT, 23; London: SCM Press, 1957), p. 113; M. Limbeck, ‘Satan und das Böse im Neuen Testament’, in H. Haag (ed.), Teufelsglaube (Tübingen: Katzmann, 1974), pp. 271-388; Peter von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial (SUNT, 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), pp. 95, 210-11; U.B. Müller, ‘Vision und Botschaft. Erwägungen zur prophetischen Struktur der Verkündigung Jesu’, ZThK 74 (1977), pp. 416-48; I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke. A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGCT, 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 428-29; Helmut Merklein, Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip. Untersuchung zur Ethik Jesu (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1978), p. 160; S. Vollenweider, ‘Ich sah den Satan wie einen Blitz vom Himmel fallen (Lk 10,18)’, ZNW 79 (1988), pp. 187-203; Jürgen Becker, Jesus of Nazareth (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1998), pp. 107-10. 7. The phrase ‘to fall from heaven’ occurs in Isa. 14.12 to describe the overthrow of the king of Babylon. 8. Helmut Merklein, Botschaft Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2nd edn, 1983), pp. 60-62. 9. See Mk 3.20-27; Mt. 12.22-29 = Lk. 11.14-22. 10. It is sometimes argued that the use of the phrase ‘finger of God’ is an allusion to Moses, through whom ‘the finger of God’ was manifested (Exod. 8.19). The intention is



5.   Christ’s Death as Means of Deliverance from Dominion of Satan 139

the Kingdom of God has come upon you’ (Mt. 12.27-28; Lk. 11.19-20).11 Both phrases mean the action of God through the Spirit. According to Jesus, the Kingdom of God comes by means of his exorcist activity; the Kingdom of Beelzebul or Satan is thereby undermined.12 Later in Acts, Peter describes how Jesus ‘went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him’ (10.38). Although the Kingdom of God is rejected by most of Jesus’ contemporaries, especially the Jewish leadership, Jesus nevertheless interprets his resultant death as the means by which Satan will de irreversibly overthrown. What appears to be a defeat ironically turns out to be an ultimate victory. He explains that his death is the means by which the Satan will be removed or expelled as the ruler of the world: ‘Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out’ (Jn 12.31).13 Similarly, he says, ‘The ruler of this world has been to model Jesus on the figure of Moses. See T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931), pp. 82-83; Gösta Lundström, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1963), p. 235; Scot McKnight, Jesus and his Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), pp. 197-200. But this seems to be a case of over-interpretation. 11. Matthew’s version of the saying is very close to Luke’s, the differences being that Matthew lacks Luke’s e0gw/ and has ‘by the Spirit of God’ (e0n pneu/mati qeou~) rather than ‘by the finger of God’ (e0n daktu/lw| qeou~). On the assumption that there was one original version, there has been much debate about which of the two versions is more original. But it is equally plausible that there were two versions of this tradition in circulation, one using the metaphor ‘finger of God’ and the other substituting the vehicle ‘finger’ for the tenor ‘Spirit’. Luke probably did not change ‘by Spirit of God’ to ‘by finger of God’, because he has no preference for genitive constructions without the definite article (Joachim Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums: Redaktion und Tradition im Nicht-Markusstoff des dritten Evangeliums [KEK, Sonderband 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), p. 201; see also Siegfried Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten [Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972], p. 205; R. Hummel, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium [BEvT, 33; Munich, 2nd edn, 1966], p. 124; C.K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit in the Gospel Tradition [London: SPCK, 1967], pp. 53-65; Dieter Lührmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle [WMANT, 33; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969], p. 33; Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus [New York: Harper & Row, 1967], p. 63; Jacques Schlosser, Le règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus [2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1980], I, pp. 132-34; Merklein, Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip, p. 158; W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Commentary on Matthew [3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997], II, p. 340). On the use of the metaphor ‘finger of God’, see Exod. 8.19; 31.18; Deut. 9.10; Ps. 8.3; Ezek. 8.1; 11.5; Dan. 5.5; 1QM 18.1-15 (see B. Couroyer, ‘“Le doigt de Dieu” [Exod viii, 15]’, RB 63 [1956], pp. 481-95). 12. See Barry D. Smith, Jesus’ Twofold Teaching about the Kingdom of God (NTM, 24; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press), pp. 93-103. 13. Likewise, the world is judged because by the rejection of Jesus it reveals itself to hostile to God.

140

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

judged’ (16.11).14 The idea that this world, by which is meant the human realm, is under the control of Satan (or one of his other appellations) is commonplace in second-Temple Judaism.15 The expectation that God will bring this rule to an end in the eschatological future is likewise commonly held at the time of Jesus. What is unique in the New Testament is that it occurs by means of the death of the Messiah, which is unprecedented in Jewish expectation. There is evidence of Satan’s involvement in Jesus’s death, in which case he also must have had no idea of what the consequences of that death would be, as Paul seems to indicate, when he writes, ‘But we speak the wisdom of God…which none of the rulers of this age knew, for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory’ (1 Cor. 5.7-8).16 Paul explains that Christ commissioned him to go to the gentiles in order ‘to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God’ (Acts 26.18). Furthermore he makes a causal connection between Christ’s death and freedom from Satan and the spiritual beings under his authority. In Eph. 2.1-6, he explains that a Christian 14. See references to ‘god of this world’ in 2 Cor. 4.4 and ‘the ruler of the power of the air’ in Eph. 2.2. At Jesus’ temptation Satan makes the claim to have authority over ‘all the kingdoms of the world’, which Jesus does not dispute (Lk. 4.5-6). For this reason, John writes, that the entire world is ‘under the power of the evil one’ (1 Jn 5.19). 15. According to Qumran sectarian texts, Israel’s history is divided into two eras, the first of which is under the control of Belial, the archenemy of God and the righteous. This era must run its course before there can be a transition to the next era. Certain phrases used in the Community Rule are reflective of this theological understanding of history: ‘during the dominion of Belial’ (l(ylb tl#mmb) (1QS 1.18, 23b-24a) and ‘all the days of Belial’s dominion’ (l(ylb  tl#mm  ymwy  lwk) (2.19). During what is called ‘the dominion of his enmity’ (wtm+m  tl#mmb) the sons of light—the members of the community—will suffer at the hands of Belial and the spirits of his lot and be caused to stumble (1QS 3.23-24). It is according to the mysteries of God (l) yzr) that Belial and the spirits of his lot are allowed substantial control over Israel and the world for this period of time. In the War Scroll, the phrase ‘dominion of Belial’ also occurs (14.9 = 4Q491 frags. 8-10 1.6]), as does the phrase ‘prince of the dominion of deceit’ (h(#$r tl#$mm r#&) (17.5-6). Belial has spirits under his authority: ‘[Belial and al]l the angels of his dominion’ (yk)lm l[wkw l(ylb] wtl#$mm) (1.15) (see ‘army of his dominion’ wtl#$mm  l[y]x] [18.1]). In the Damascus Document, it is explained that from the founding of the community to the ‘completion of time’ (Cqh  Mwlw#$), ‘Belial will be sent against Israel’ (l)r#$yb  xlw#$m  l(ylb) (CD 4.12-18). In 4Q390 (Pseudo-Moses) there is a similar reference to time of the dominion of Belial: ‘And [there will co]me the dominion of Belial upon them to deliver them to the sword for a week of year[s]’ ([My]n#$ (wb#$ brxl Mrygshl Mhb l(ylb tl#$mm yh[t]w) (frag. 2 1.3b-4). It seems that this text describes the last week of the last jubilee of the time before the eschaton (see 1QS 3.23-24). 16. Lk. 22.3; Jn 13.2. This same ruler of the world ironically plays a role is precipitating Jesus’ betrayal to the Jewish authorities (Jn 13.27; 14.30). John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), pp. 49-50.



5.   Christ’s Death as Means of Deliverance from Dominion of Satan 141

has been granted the privilege of sharing in the authority granted to Christ, which means that he now no longer lives as under the control of Satan.17 He first describes the pre-Christian existence of his readers as being spiritually dead.18 Their spiritual death was ‘in your transgressions and sins’, by which he means because of them (2.1-2a)19 In addition, Paul writes that his readers’ lives were ‘according to the age of this world’ (2.2b), which is in apposition to being dead in transgressions and sins.20 The preposition ‘according to’ (kata&) denotes the standard according to which the readers lived their lives. That standard was ‘the age of this world’ (kata_ to_n ai)w~na tou~ ko&smou tou&tou). In his other letters, Paul refers to ‘this age’ (Rom. 12.2; 1 Cor. 1.20; 2.6, 8; 3.18; 2 Cor. 4.4; Eph. 1.21) and ‘this world’ (1 Cor. 3.19), by which he means the same thing as ‘the age of this world’.21 In accordance with a Jewish two-ages understanding of history, each term denotes the historical period marked by disobedience and under the dominion of Satan. The same is true of the somewhat redundant genitive phrase ‘the age of this world’; it is a genitive of quality meaning ‘the period of time consisting of this world’. It is not surprising that in apposition to ‘according to the age of this world’ is found the prepositional phrase ‘according to the prince of the power of the air’, which is another name for Satan.22 This phrase describes the fact that the readers were subject to the control of Satan, which explains why he is called a ruler (a)rxw~n). It is Satan’s primary aim to lead human beings into disobedience and spiritual death and so be ‘dead in transgressions and sins’. The word ‘power’ (e0cousi/a) probably means ‘domain’, and ‘air’ relates to ‘power’ as a genitive of quality: 17. H. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), pp. 305-39; P.T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 153-73. 18. When he says that his readers were ‘dead’, Paul means spiritually dead, or separated from God. This is a metaphor used to describe the pre-Christian spiritual condition of his readers. 19. The dative phrase toij paraptw&masin kai tai~j a(martiaij is causal; see Rom. 11.20. Paul says that his readers formerly (pote) ‘walked’, which is to say, lived ‘in’ (e0n) ‘transgressions and sins’. There is probably no difference in meaning between ‘transgressions’ and ‘sins’ in the phrase ‘dead in your transgressions and sins’ (nekrou_j toi~j paraptw&masin kai_ tai~j a(mart/aij u(mw~n) (2.1). They are synonymous terms, so that the phrase ‘transgressions and sins’ is a hendiadys, two words used to express one idea: sin in general. See the use of the metaphor of death in 1QHa 11.19; 19.10-14 and Philo’s writings: Leg. all. 1.24, 33; 3.14; Det. pot. 20; Quod deus 19; De fug. 10, 15, 21; De praem. 12; De somn. 2.9. 20. kata_ to_n ai)w~na tou~ ko&smou tou&tou. 21. The phrase ‘wisdom of this world’ (1 Cor. 3.19) is a synonym for ‘the wisdom of this age’ (1 Cor. 2.6). 22. kata_ to_n a1rxonta th~j tou~ a)e/oj. See the synonymous terms ‘devil’ (dia&boloj) in 4.27; 6.11 and ‘the evil one’ (o( ponhro&j) in 6.16.

142

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

the domain characterized by ‘the air’. The phrase ‘domain of the air’ relates to ‘ruler’ as an objective genitive: what the a)rxw~n rules is ‘the domain of the air’. The term ‘air’ denotes the location of the domain: Satan does not reign in the heavens, but in ‘the air’, the spiritual realm ‘beneath’ the heavens but ‘above’ the world, over which his domain extends (see Eph. 6.12).23 Similarly, in 2 Cor. 4.4, Paul describes Satan as ‘the god of this age’.24 Like the phrase ‘the age of this world’ in Eph. 2.2, ‘this age’ refers to the historical period characterized by disobedience and being under the dominion of Satan and the spirits under his authority. Satan is the ‘god’, or ruler, of this historical period (see Eph. 2.2 ‘ruler’ [a)rxw~n]). The ruler of the power of the air is further characterized as ‘the spirit now at work in the sons of disobedience’ (Eph. 2.2).25 The phrase ‘sons of disobedience’ is a Semitism denoting disobedient human beings, those who live in ‘the age of this world’ (Eph. 2.2). Paul affirms that Satan, in part at least, is responsible for the fact that human beings are disobedient, that he has influenced them for the worse. As a result of being under the rule of Satan, human beings live in the sphere of the ‘flesh’ (sa&rc), or sinful nature (2.3), being thereby ‘children of wrath’ in the sense of being objects of God’s condemnation. The flesh is the third factor, in addition to ‘age of this world’ and the rule of ‘the prince of the power of the air’, formerly determining the lives of the readers: ‘Among whom [the sons of disobedience] you formerly lived in the desires of the flesh’ (Eph. 2.3). In contrast to being in the state described in Eph. 2.1-3, Paul explains that God has now made Christians alive with Christ (sunezwopoi/hsen tw~| xristw~)| (2.5).26 What he means is that Christians who were formerly spiritually dead, existing in ‘the age of this world’, have now been made alive spiritually.27 What is implied is that being made alive spiritually is possible 23. See Diog. Laet. 8.32; Plutarch, Mor. 274B; Celsus 8.35; PGM 13. 278; 4.1134; 2699; 3042; 7.314; Philo, Plant. 14; Gig. 6-7; Conf. ling. 174 al.; Mart. Isa. 11.23; T. Benj. 3.4. It is possible the ‘air’ is the equivalent of the lowest heaven in T. Levi 3.2-3, where spirits of punishment reside. 24. o( qeo_j tou~ ai)w~noj tou&tou. 25. tou~ pneu&matoj tou~ nu~n e0nergou~ntoj e0n toi~j ui(oi~j th~j a)peiqei/aj. The phrase stands in apposition to ‘the prince of the power of the air’, even though it is in the genitive, which is grammatically incorrect, but probably influenced by the preceding genitives. 26. The coordinating conjunction de/ is adversative, meaning ‘but’. The main clause beginning with ‘But God…’ (2.3) stands in contrast to the participial clause (followed by relative clauses) beginning with ‘And you were…’. The contrast is between what the readers were formerly and what God has done for them. 27. The dative tw~| Xristw~| is controlled by the prefix su&n, and so is a dative of association: ‘with Christ’. The description of believers as ‘being made alive with Christ’ occurs elsewhere only in Col. 2.13, but with the prepositional phrase su_n au)tw~| (‘with him’) rather than the dative tw~| Xristw~|.



5.   Christ’s Death as Means of Deliverance from Dominion of Satan 143

because of Christ’s death and resurrection (see Rom. 6.5-11). Moreover, Paul says that Christians have been raised to the status of being seated with Christ in the heavenlies (2.6) (see Eph. 1.20-22a). This could be an interpretation of Ps. 110.1 ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’ (see Col. 3.1 ‘where Christ is seated at the right hand of God’). To be seated with Christ means that a believer’s spiritual status is to share authority with Christ. This occurs in the heavenlies, which, being roughly synonymous with ‘the air’ (see Eph. 2.2), is the realm inhabited by hostile spiritual beings (see Eph. 3.10; 6.12 ‘in the heavenlies’). Paul is describing the authority now granted by Christ to believers over Satan and his subordinate spirits. No longer are they ruled by Satan; nor is Satan at work in them for disobedience any longer, since they share in Christ’s authority over the spiritual world, the heavenlies. The adverbial phrase ‘in Christ Jesus’ modifying the verb ‘he raised us up and seated us’ denotes that this new spiritual status is the result of Christ’s death and resurrection. Paul believes that Christians neither live in ‘the age of this world’ or ‘this age’, nor are under the dominion of its ruler or god, Satan, any longer. In the thanksgiving of his letter to the Colossians, Paul describes himself and his readers as those whom God has delivered from ‘the dominion of darkness’ (h( e0cousi/a tou~ sko&touj) (Col. 1.13). In his speech before Agrippa, he uses the synonymous phrase ‘dominion of Satan’ (h( e0cousi/a tou~ Satana~) and similarly identifies it with darkness (Acts 26.18). By both phrases he is referring to the realm under the authority and control of Satan, in which human beings find themselves.28 Christians, however, are those who have been rescued from that realm and ‘transferred to the kingdom of the son of his love’ (Col. 1.13). Paul uses this phrase to describe the realm ruled by Christ, brought into being by his death and resurrection. As Paul explains in 1 Cor. 15.24-28, from the period of his resurrection until his return, Christ has been granted authority to rule the whole created order, including the spiritual beings identified as rulers, authorities and powers (1 Cor. 15.24). This deliverance from the dominion of darkness is closely associated with forgiveness of sins made possible by Christ: ‘in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins’ (1.14). The same close association is found in Acts 26.18: ‘in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins’ (see Eph. 1.7 ‘forgiveness of our trespasses’).

28. The same phrase occurs in Lk. 22.52-53: Jesus says to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who have come to arrest him, that ‘This is your hour and that of the dominion of darkness’. His meaning is that disobedient human beings who belong to the spiritual realm ruled by Satan are left unopposed at this time in order to carry out their plans to thwart the realization of God’s salvation-historical purposes by killing the mediator of the Kingdom of God.

144

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Later, in the context of dealing with the issue of the involvement with spiritual beings (‘angels’ or ‘elements of the world’) by the false teachers in Colossae, Paul asserts that God has disarmed the rulers and authorities (2.15).29 (The subject of ‘to disarm’ is God, since there is no change of subject from 2.14 to 2.15).30 In the early Christian hymn cited earlier in the letter (1.15-20), all spiritual beings, including the ‘rulers and authorities’ are said to be created ‘in’ Christ, which means by the agency of Christ, so that there is no absolute dualism between God and those spiritual beings who oppose him (see 1QM 13.10-11). Nevertheless, Christ disarms ‘the rulers and authorities’, in the sense of removing them from positions of power over human beings and creation. Although Paul does not say so explicitly, it follows that, if the rulers and authorities are removed from power, then so is Satan, their leader, who rules through them. Perhaps he makes no reference to Satan because the heresy that he is attempting to refute accords no role to him, but exalts various other spirit beings, known as ‘the elemental principles of the cosmos’ (2.8) and ‘angels’ (Col. 2.18-19). Paul adds that God has made public display of the rulers and authorities.31 In other words, God makes it clear to all that these beings are now defeated and disarmed enemies because of the event of the cross. As a result of their powerlessness, they are held up to ridicule and shame. In addition, Paul says that God has led them in triumphal procession.32 (He uses this image ironically of the apostles in 2 Cor. 2.14-16b). This is a metaphor drawn from the Roman practice of marching conquered foes in a public procession in Rome, in order to glorify the victorious Roman army and its generals as well as to humiliate their vanquished enemies.33 Paul’s point is that the soteriological benefit resulting from Christ’s death includes the defeat of evil spirits; no longer can they have the same unimpeded access to human beings in order to lead them away from God. It is as if they are so completely conquered that God has put them on public display, leading them in triumphal procession. The adverbial phrase ‘in him’ (e0n au)tw~|) following ‘leading them in triumphal procession’ has a causal sense: ‘by the agency of’. If the pronoun au)tw~| refers to Christ, then Paul is saying that Christ is the agent by which God defeats the ‘rulers and authorities’. In the same way that they 29. a)pekdusa&amenoj ta_j a)rxa_j kai_ ta_j e0cousi&aj. The verb a)pekdu&omai is in the middle voice and means literally ‘to take off one’s clothes’, but it is also used with the active sense of ‘to disarm oneself’, in the sense of rendering oneself powerless (BAG 82). 30. Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), pp. 111-12; P.T. O’Brien, Colossians and Philemon (WBC, 33; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), p. 127. 31. e0deigma&tisen e0n parrhsi/a|. 32. qriambeu&saj au)tou_j e0n au)tw~|. 33. See Plutarch, Aemilius Paulus 32-34.



5.   Christ’s Death as Means of Deliverance from Dominion of Satan 145

were created ‘in him’ (Col. 1.16), so they were defeated ‘in him’ (2.15). If the antecedent of au)tw~|, however, is the ‘the cross’ (2.14), the grammatically correct option, then Paul is affirming that Christ’s ignominious death is ironically the means by which ‘the powers and authorities’ are defeated. In Gal. 1.4 Paul writes that Christ ‘gave himself for our sins’ and then explains that the purpose of this was ‘in order to rescue us from this present evil age’34 (see also Rom. 8.38; 1 Cor. 3.22).35 The phrase ‘this present evil age’ is another way of expressing the idea of a period of history under the domination of Satan and his subordinate spirits, synonymous with ‘the age of this world’ (Eph. 2.2) and ‘this age’ (2 Cor. 4.4). In his view, Christians can be described as having been rescued from ‘this present evil age’. In addition, there is a connection between being so rescued and Christ’s having given himself for the sins of human beings.36 Although it is already a present reality, according to Paul, there is also a future component to Christ’s victory over Satan and his allied spirits. This victory is not yet complete and will not be until an appointed time in the future. In 1 Cor. 15.24-25, he writes, ‘Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to the father, when he has subjugated every ruler (a)rxhn&) and every authority (e0cousi/an) and power (du&namin)’. In Paul’s view ‘the end’ (to_ te/loj) will consist of Christ’s handing over the kingdom to the father and his final subjugation of all hostile spiritual beings (see also Phil. 2.10 ‘that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth’). By ‘end’ is meant the culmination of God’s salvation-historical work, coincidental with Christ’s return and general resurrection. From the period of his resurrection until his return, Christ has been granted authority to rule the whole created order; when he has finally defeated all his enemies, including death (15.25-26), he will hand back this authority or the kingdom to the father (see 2 Tim. 1.1 ‘who [Christ Jesus] abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel’). That the terms ‘ruler’, ‘authority’ and ‘power’ refer to demons or evil spirits is probable, given Paul’s other uses of these terms. In 1 Cor. 6.3, Paul says that believers will have a role in judging (evil) angels and in Rom. 5.17 he makes passing reference to the fact that they ‘will reign in life with the one Jesus Christ’. It should be noted that 1 Cor. 15.25 ‘For he must reign until everything is put under his feet’ intertextually alludes to lxx 34. o#pwj e0ce/lhtai h(ma~j e0k tou~ ai)w~noj tou~ e0nestw~toj ponhrou~. 35. See also ‘this age’ in Rom. 12.2; 1 Cor. 1.20, 2.6, 8; 3.18; 2 Cor. 4.4; ‘the now age’ in 1 Tim. 6.17; 2 Tim. 4.10; Tit. 2.12; ‘this world’ or ‘the world’ in 1 Cor. 1.27-28; 3.19; 5.10; 7.31; and ‘the now time’ in Rom. 8.18. 36. Ernest DeWitt Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), pp. 13-15; Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 42.

146

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Ps. 109[110].1 ‘Sit at my right hand until I put all your enemies under your feet’ (see Mk 12.35-37 = Mt. 22.41-46 = Lk. 20.41-44). Paul interprets this messianic prophecy in relation to the interim period between Christ’s ascension and the final subjugation of all hostile spiritual beings, the time of the culmination of God’s salvation-historical work in human history. In his reference to the subjugation of death, Paul also probably alludes to Isa. 25.8: ‘He will swallow up death forever’ (see also Ps. 8.7).37 In Heb. 2.10-18, the author speaks about the necessity of Jesus’ suffering and the fraternal relationship that exists between him and believers.38 In Heb. 2.13b he quotes from Isa. 8.18 ‘Behold, I and the children whom God has given to me’ to make the point that God has given ‘children’ to the Messiah. Although in the original context the prophet Isaiah is the speaker, the author interprets this text messianically, so that Christ is now understood as the one speaking.39 The author affirms that the children and the one to whom the children have been given are the same: they both share the same ‘blood and flesh’. He is stressing the identity of Jesus with human beings. In Heb. 2.14b, the author then says that the purpose of Jesus’ assuming ‘blood and flesh’ was that he might destroy the one who has the power of death, the devil (dia&boloj).40 In particular, in Heb. 2.15-17, the author says that Jesus as High Priest, who atones for sins, frees those who are held in slavery by the fear of death by granting the possibility of forgiveness and life, which the reader discovers later in the letter is causally connected to Christ’s own suffering and death.41 Finally, John explains that, ‘For this reason the Son of God appeared in order to loose the works of the devil’ (1 Jn 3.8).42 The verb ‘to loose’ literally means to undo, but in this context it has the figurative meaning of to nullify or destroy.43 By works is meant the results of the devil’s fundamental intention to oppose the will of God, which leads to the physical and spiritual oppression of human beings. The purpose of the appearance of the son

37. Lucien Cerfaux, Le chrétien dans la théologie paulinienne (Lectio divina, 33; Paris: Cerf, 1962), pp. 148-51. 38. William R.G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester (WMANT, 53. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), pp. 132-41. 39. ‘Lord’ (ku&rioj) is still speaking to ‘God’, which was begun in 2.13. 40. i3na dia_ tou~ qana&tou katagh&sh| to_n to_ kra&toj e1xonta tou~ qana&tou, tou~t’ e1stin to_n dia&bolon. The construction kra&toj + genitive denotes having ‘power over’ (see Josephus, Ant. 1.282). 41. See 1 Cor. 15.26, 55; 2 Tim. 1.10. In the second-Temple period likewise, the linking of the devil and death also sometimes occurs (Jub. 49.2; Wis. 2.24). 42. ei)j tou~to e0fanerw&qh o( ui(o_j tou~ qeou~, i3na lu&sh| ta_ e1rga tou~ diabo&lou. 43. See Acts 27.41 for its literal use and its figurative use in Jn 2.19; Acts 2.24; Eph. 2.14 and 2 Pet. 3.10-12.



5.   Christ’s Death as Means of Deliverance from Dominion of Satan 147

of God, by which is meant the messiah, is to free human beings from the domination of the devil and therefore nullify his works. 3. Early Church Fathers The early Church Fathers further develop the idea that Jesus’ suffering and death is the means by which Satan is defeated and overthrown and human beings are thereby released from his power and the spirits under his authority.44 This deliverance is often found in a soteriological triad with forgiveness of sins and the nullification of death. As indicated, although never interpreted in this way in the New Testament, the prophecy of Gen. 3.15 is said to refer to the destruction of the dominion of Satan by Christ by some early Christian theologians. The snake is interpreted as Satan, who is then crushed by Christ, the seed of the woman.45 Irenaeus identifies the snake in Gen. 3.15 with the dragon, the ancient snake of Rev. 12.9; 20.2. The one who crushes the head of the snake is Christ, the son of Mary (Adv. haer. 3.23.7; 4.40.3). In this connection, he offers a messianic interpretation of Ps. 91.13 ‘You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon’, seeing it as a prophetic parallel to Gen. 3.15. Citing Gal. 3.19 ‘until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made’ and Gal. 4.4 ‘But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his son, born of a woman’, Irenaeus explains that it was necessary that Christ be born of a woman and so truly be a human being because otherwise he could not have defeated the enemy. He writes, ‘For indeed the enemy would not have been fairly vanquished, unless it had been a man [born] of a woman who conquered him. For it was by means of a woman that he got the advantage over man at first, setting himself up as man’s opponent’ (5.21.1). This argument is directed against his Gnostic opponents who denigrate the physical world and consider it impossible that the aeon Christ would ever assume a human body. To reinforce his position, he adds that Christ is called the son of man because he descended from the original man: ‘And therefore does the Lord profess himself to be the son of man, comprising in himself that original man out of whom the woman was fashioned, in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm [of victory] against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death’ (5.21.1). Unless he was truly a man, which is what the title son of man is erroneously thought to denote, Christ could not have 44. See Peter Lombard’s later synthesis in Sent. 3.19. 45. See Justin, Dial. 103.5; Ep. Diog. 12.8; Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.23.7; 4.40.3; Demonstr. 33; Origen, Hom. in Jer. 19.7; Ambrose, Fug. 41, 3; De interpell. 2.4; Augustine, Gn. litt. 11.36; Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. lib. 1, n. 426.

148

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

rescued human beings from the plight of death. Based on Eph. 1.10 ‘the summing up of all things in Christ’, Irenaeus refers to what Christ accomplishes as a restoration (recapitulatio/a)nakefalai&wsij), in the sense of undoing what Adam did. He writes, ‘He has therefore, in his work of restoration, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head’ (Adv. haer. 5.21.1-2; see 3.18.1, 7; 3.21.10; 3.23.1; 4.6.1; 5.19.1; Demonstr. 33).46 Another new element used to supplement the biblical data is the idea of Mary as the second Eve who nullifies the disastrous effects of the first Eve’s deception (Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 5.19.1; 5.21.12; Demonstr. 33; Clement, Dial. 100). Early Christian theologians expand upon the view found in the New Testament that a result of Christ’s death is the possibility of being delivered from the dominion of Satan. Justin Martyr asserts that in this salvationhistorical period, what he calls Christ’s oi0konomi/a (economy or dispensation), the power over human beings possessed by Satan (‘the snake that sinned from the beginning’) and demons under his control is destroyed, and death is scorned (Dial. 45).47 In this salvation-historical period the demons that human beings used to serve have been overcome by Christ’s suffering and death (Dial. 30; see 41).48 As in the New Testament, he connects being delivered from the dominion of Satan with freedom from death. Clement of Alexandria explains that a floral crown, commonly worn in his day, serves as a symbol of ‘the Lord’s successful work’ accomplished in his passion, by which human beings are rescued ‘from offenses, and sins’. In addition, quoting 1 Cor. 15.55, he explains that by removing the sting of death, Christ has destroyed the devil: ‘And having destroyed the devil, deservedly said in triumph, “O Death, where is your sting?”’ (Paedag. 2.8).49 Like the author of Hebrews (2.14), Clement understands death and the dominion of the devil as inseparably connected. Likewise, he says about Christians, described in part as those who have attained to the knowledge of God, as ‘wrenched away from our sins’ and ‘separated from the devil’ (Protr. 9).50 To be separated from the devil means to be removed from his dominion and influence, which is closely associated with being freed from sin, in the sense of being forgiven. 46. Omnia ergo recapitulans recapitulates est, et adversus inimicum nostrum bellum provocans, et elidens eum, qui in initio in Adam captivos duxerat nos, et calcans eius caput (5.21.1). 47. i3na dia_ th~j oi)konomi/aj tau&thj o( ponhreusa&menoj th_n a)rxh_n o!fij. kai_ oi( e0comoiwqe/ntej au)tw~| a1ggeloi kataluqw~si, kai_ o( qa&natoj katafonhth~|. 48. w#ste kai_ ta_ daimo&nia u(pota&ssesqai tw~| o)no&mati au)tou~, kai_ th~| tou~ genome/nou pa&qouj au)tou~ oi)konomi/a|. 49. kai_ to_n dia&bolon katargh&saj. 50. tw~n a(martiw~n a)pespasme/noi / tou~ diabo&lou kexwrisme/noise.



5.   Christ’s Death as Means of Deliverance from Dominion of Satan 149

Alluding to the synoptic tradition represented by Mt. 12.29, Mk 3.27 and Lk. 11.21-22, Irenaeus asserts that the purpose of the incarnation was that the strong man, the devil, would be despoiled and death abolished by means of the second man, Christ (Rom. 5.12-19). He writes, ‘By means of the second man did he bind the strong man, and spoiled his goods, and abolished death, vivifying that man who had been in a state of death’ (Adv. haer. 3.23.1). Overcoming the devil and abolishing death are two aspects of the same salvation-historical event. As already indicated, in his typological interpretation of the Passover, Melito of Sardis claims that by his death Christ makes possible the release from bondage to the devil (Pasch. 67). Similarly, alluding to 1 Jn 3.8, Athanasius asserts that the reason for Christ’s incarnation and death was ‘to raise man up and destroy the works of the devil’ (Ar. 2.55). He means that Christ’s physical death makes possible the resurrection of the dead, which is the undoing of what the devil caused, i.e. death. (Later he cites 1 Cor. 15.21 ‘since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead’.) He then quotes from Heb. 2.1314 to the effect that Christ assumed true physicality (‘blood and flesh’) for the purpose of bringing to nothing the devil, who had authority over death, and freeing human beings from the fear of death. Based on the description of Satan as ‘the prince of the power of the air’ in Eph. 2.2, Athanasius also asserts that through his death Jesus purified the air where Satan and demons dwell in order to allow human beings access to heaven. This explains why Jesus died in the ‘air’ by being lifted up on a cross (Jn 12.32) (Incarn. 4.25; see 10.3; Ar. 2.68). Although somewhat overly-creative, his intertextual embellishment nevertheless is not inconsistent with what is found in the New Testament. Origen explains that Christ voluntarily died on the cross for the benefit of others. In particular, his death brings freedom from the dominion of Satan: ‘to ensure the destruction of a mighty evil spirit, the ruler of evil spirits, who had held in subjection the souls of all men upon earth’ (Con. Cels. 1.31).51 He draws a parallel between Christ and men who willingly die in order to remove evils from cities and countries (see Prin. 3.2.1; Con. Cels. 6.43). According to Hilary, the purpose of Christ’s suffering and death, the indispensable condition of which is the incarnation, is for human beings to be delivered from their subjection to hostile spiritual powers. He writes, ‘Thus God was born to take us into himself, suffered to justify us, and died to avenge us; for our manhood abides for ever in him, the weakness of our infirmity is united with his strength, and the spiritual powers of iniquity and wickedness are subdued in the triumph of our flesh, since God died through the flesh’ (De Trin. 9.7). Hilary’s point is that, because Christ became one 51. kai_ daimo&nwn a!rxontoj, u(pota&cantoj o#laj ta_j e0pi\ gh_n e0lhluqui/aj a)nqrw&pwn yuxa&j.

150

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

of them, human beings who are inherently weak can now share in his triumph over the devil and the spirits under his control. Without Christ’s incarnation, suffering and death, this result could not have occurred. Similarly, in his interpretation of Ps. 136.24 ‘He redeemed us from our enemies’, Hilary explains that God redeemed human beings through the blood, suffering, death and resurrection of Christ (Tr. ps. 135.15). He quotes 1 Cor. 6.20 ‘You are redeemed [bought] with a price’ as a theological parallel to this passage, and explains that this redemption is from Satan, evil spirits and death.52 Finally, interpreting Heb. 2.16, Chrysostom explains that the purpose of the incarnation was the destruction of death and removal of the devil from power. He writes, ‘He destroyed death, he cast out the devil from his tyranny, he freed us from bondage: not by brotherhood alone did he honor us, but also in other ways beyond number. For he was willing also to become our High Priest with the father’ (In ep. ad Heb. Hom. 5.1).53 Citing Mk 10.45, he explains that, because of sins, human beings are under the yoke of Satan, but that Christ became a ransom and has delivered them (In Matt. Hom. 65.4). Along the same lines, in his interpretation of Jn 13.1-5, Augustine ingeniously interprets Col. 1.13 in light of the Passover (Exod. 12.23) to make the point that a Christian is released from the dominion of the devil. He asserts that, because of the blood of Christ, Christians have passed over from the devil to Christ: ‘And a most salutary transit we make when we pass over from the devil to Christ, and from this unstable world to his wellestablished kingdom’ (Io. ev. tr. 55.1). This ‘transit’ he finds described in Col. 1.13. The connection between Exod. 12.23 and Col. 1.13 is the fact that in Augustine’s Latin translation the term for Passover is transitus, and Paul uses the verb transtulit in the Latin translation of Col. 1.13: ‘has transferred us into the kingdom of the son of his love’. Of course, this interpretation would not work so well if he used the original languages. Gregory Nazianzus describes the purpose of the incarnation as ‘that he [God] might deliver us himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to himself by the mediation of his son’ (Or. 45). Similarly, interpreting Col. 3.9 ‘putting off the old man with his deeds’, Cyril of Jerusalem describes how, by removing his garment in order to be baptized, a candidate for baptism symbolically puts off the old man that was controlled by evil spirits; in so doing he is imitating Christ who triumphed over them by his crucifixion. He writes, ‘Having stripped yourselves, you were naked; in this also imitating Christ, who was stripped naked on the cross, and by his nakedness put off from himself the rulers and authorities, and openly triumphed over 52. Et redempti ab inimicis, a diabolo, ab angelis eius, a filio perditionis, a principibus aeris, a mundi potentibus, ab inimica morte. 53. qa&naton e1luse, tou~ diabo&lou th~j turanni/doj e0ce/balen h(ma~j, doulei&aj a)ph&llacen.



5.   Christ’s Death as Means of Deliverance from Dominion of Satan 151

them on the tree. For since the adverse powers made their lair in your members, you may no longer wear that old garment’ (Cat. lect. 20.1; see 19.3 ‘the blood of the Lamb without blemish Jesus Christ is made the charm to scare evil spirits’).54 It is obvious that the reference to Christ’s triumphing over the rulers and authorities derives from Col. 2.15. Cyril was no doubt drawn to the text because of Paul’s use of the verb a)pekdu&omai, which in the middle voice means ‘to take off one’s clothes’. He makes it unambiguous that Christ’s triumph was by means of his death, or as he puts it, ‘[he] triumphed over them on the tree’.55 In addition, according to him, the ‘old man’, characterized as being corrupt in the desires of deceit, an allusion to Eph. 4.22, is such as a result of being under the domination of evil spirits: ‘The hostile powers made their lair in your members’.56 Their pernicious influence on human beings is removed by Christ’s triumph over them by his death on the cross. The question of how Jesus’ suffering and death is the cause of the defeat of Satan and the freedom of human beings from his dominion is explored by the early church fathers. The New Testament simply states this as a fact without providing any details about the nature of the causal relationship between the two. Early church theologians, however, seek to supply what is lacking in the New Testament, but with questionable results.57 Irenaeus paraphrases the biblical position by stating that, by means of Christ’s death, God redeems his property from the devil, by which he means frees them. He writes, ‘And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to his own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it his own property’ (Adv haer. 5.1.1).58 He adds that the devil unjustly held human beings under his dominion, which could be said to be implied in the New Testament. Later in considering Jesus’ temptations, Irenaeus explains further that Christ conquered Satan by means of his obedience, which proved that Satan was disobedient and therefore disqualified him to retain control over human beings who were sinners. He writes, ‘The Lord therefore exposes him as speaking contrary to the word of that God who made all things, and subdues him by

54. e0ntau~qa tou~ A 0 mnou~ tou~ a)mw&mou I0 hsou~ Xristou~ to_ ai{ma daimo&nwn kaqe/sthke fugadeuth&rion. 55. e0n tw~| culw~|. 56. toi~j me/lesi toi~j u(mete/roij e0nefw&leuon ai( a)ntikei/menai duna&meij. 57. See William Thomson, The Atoning Work of Christ (London: Longman et al., 1853), pp. 147-75. 58. Juste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quae sunt sua redimens ab ea non cum vi, quemadmodum ilia initio dominabatur nostri.

152

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

means of the commandment’ (5.21.3).59 It is not clear, however, why being shown to be disobedient would disqualify the devil from his unjust right to dominate sinful human beings. Taking a clue from Mk 10.45 ‘ransom for many’, Origen argues that a transaction took place between God and the devil, such that Christ’s death served as a ransom paid to Satan in order to release human beings from his dominion. Based on Paul’s statement ‘You were bought with a price’ (1 Cor. 6.20), he hypothesizes that it was because of their sins that human beings were held under the power of the devil and that the devil demanded as the price of their release the blood of Christ (Comm. Rom. 2.13). The ransom consisting of the soul of Jesus was paid to Satan, but he was deceived into thinking that he could lord over it (Comm. Matt. 16.8; see 13.28). As a result, he now holds no one under his power. Similarly, Basil describes how human beings were not able to free themselves from the power of the devil because the price of redemption was out of their reach on account of their sins (Hom. ps. 48.3). He goes on to explain that the one thing that was found that could pay for the redemption of their souls was the precious blood of Christ, an allusion to 1 Pet. 1.19, which he shed for us all (Hom. ps. 48.4).60 Along the same lines, Gregory of Nyssa proposes that, by means of the incarnation, God in his wisdom allowed the devil to be duped into agreeing to exchange human beings under his control for Christ. He did not recognize the deity concealed within the human being, and as a result he took the bait only to discover that he was overpowered (Or. cat. 22, 23, 24, 26). Because of his deity, death could not hold Christ and so the devil lost what he accepted in exchange for human beings. Thus he was deceived into bringing about his own defeat, and this was the wisdom of God for the salvation of human beings. Justice was served because the one who deceived was now himself deceived. In the same exegetical vein, although he is not as clear as he could be, Augustine proposes that Christ’s death effects the release of human beings from the dominion of Satan because Christ paid the price that human beings owed to the devil and other principalities and powers subservient to him

59. Irenaeus adds, ‘Now the law is the commandment of God. The Man proves him to be a fugitive from and a transgressor of the law, an apostate also from God. After [the Man had done this], the Word bound him securely as a fugitive from Himself, and made spoil of his goods,—namely, those men whom he held in bondage, and whom he unjustly used for his own purposes. And justly indeed is he led captive, who had led men unjustly into bondage; while man, who had been led captive in times past, was rescued from the grasp of his possessor’ (Adv. haer. 5.21.3). 60. a)ll’ eu9e/qh e4n o(mou~ pa&ntwn a)nqrw&pwn a)nta&cion, o( e0do&qh ei)j timh_n lutrw&sewj th~j yuxh~j h(mw~n, to_ a#gion kai_ poluti/mhton ai{ma tou~ kuri/ou h(mw~n 0Ihsou~ xristou~, o( u(pe\r h(mw~n e0ce/xee pa&ntwn.



5.   Christ’s Death as Means of Deliverance from Dominion of Satan 153

(De Trin. 4.13; 13.14-15).61 Quoting Col. 2.13-15, he explains that Christ defeated the principalities and powers by dying as a sacrifice and thereby paying the penalty that was owing to them. He writes, ‘For whereas by his death the one and most real sacrifice was offered up for us, whatever fault there was, whence principalities and powers held us fast as of right to pay its penalty, he cleansed, abolished, extinguished’ (4.13).62 Similarly, he writes, ‘And hence he proceeds to his passion, that he might pay for us debtors that which he himself did not owe’ (13.14).63 This debt seems to be owed to the devil and not God. In addition, interpreting Col. 1.13 ‘who has delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the son of his love’, Augustine describes Christ’s death as the price that was paid to the devil for the release of human beings, which ironically resulted in his being bound, since the devil unjustly killed Christ (13.15). He writes, ‘In this redemption, the blood of Christ was given, as it were, as a price for us, by accepting which the devil was not enriched, but bound’ (13.15; see 4.13 ‘bought us with so great a price’).64 He refers to the soteriological benefit made possible by Christ’s death by the general term redemption (redemptio), as Paul does in Col. 1.13, and explains that Christ’s death was a price (pretium) that was paid to the devil, who accepted it but soon discovered that he had become bound and human beings loosed (he also quotes Acts 26.18 ‘turn them…from the power of Satan’). Augustine adds that all this was according to the wisdom of God, of which the devil was unaware (4.13 [18]). The idea that Satan demanded a price for the release of sinful beings but was unaware of what the consequences of this exchange would be exceeds what is found in scripture, and many have found it offensive that Satan should ever be paid a ransom.65 Another explanation for why human beings are released from the dominion of the devil is that it was the just penalty for the devil’s unjust killing of Christ. Interpreting Jn 12.31 ‘Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out’, Chrysostom asserts that, whereas he justly brings human beings to death, the devil unjustly killed Christ. The consequence of this unjust act is that the world is avenged through Christ (In Ioan. Hom. 67.12).66 In his Enchiridion, Augustine likewise explains 61. Luigi Gioia, The Theological Epistemology of Augustine's De Trinitate (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 83-97. 62. Ad luenda supplicia iure detinebant. 63. Et pergit inde ad passionem ut pro debitoribus nobis quod ipse non debebat exsolueret. 64. In hac redemptione tamquam pretium pro nobis datus est sanguis Christi, quo accepto diabolus non ditatus est sed ligatus. 65. See Gregory Nazianzus, Or. 45.22; John of Damascus, Fid. 3.27; Anselm, Cur Deus Homo. 66. ou)kou~n di' au)tou~ e0kdikhqh&setai o( ko&smoj a#paj.

154

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

that Satan unjustly killed Christ and as a result lost his right to those whom he justly held in bondage as punishment for sins, which differs from his explanation that Christ’s death was the price paid to the devil for the release of human beings. He writes, ‘Hence, it was in authentic justice, and not by violent power, that the devil was overcome and conquered: for, as he had most unjustly slain him who was in no way deserving of death, he also did most justly lose those whom he had justly held in bondage as punishment for their sins’ (Enchir. 49). Leo the Great offers a similar explanation. According to him, human beings were justly assigned to the devil for punishment because of their sins, but Christ had no sin of any kind. This fact was concealed from the devil because Christ appeared to be no different from all other human beings and therefore should have been subject to him also. He explains, ‘The crafty foe was taken off his guard and he thought that the nativity of the child, who was born for the salvation of mankind, was as much subject to himself as all others are at their birth’ (Serm. 22.4). What he did not understand was that, in spite of bearing all the signs of being mortal, Christ had no participation in original sin: ‘He had no share in the first transgression’ (22.4). So when he killed Christ unjustly, the devil violated the terms of his agreement with God, and this resulted in forfeiting his right to punish human beings for their sins. Leo says, ‘And thus the malevolent terms of the deadly compact are annulled, and through the injustice of an overcharge the whole debt is cancelled’ (Serm. 22.4). Alluding to Jesus’ saying of the binding of the strong man, Leo concludes that the result of his unjust act of taking more than his due is that the prince of this world is bound and everything that he formerly held is released. The least speculative explanation and, for that reason, the most compelling is simply that the forgiveness of sins made possible by Christ’s death is the basis on which human beings are freed from the power of Satan, which includes power over death. This is implied in Paul’s statement that ‘The sting of death is sin’ (1 Cor. 15.56). Because of their sins, human beings find themselves under the dominion of the one who has the power over death; forgiveness brings release from this bondage and from death (see Heb. 2.14). In a reflection inspired by Phil. 2.5-8, Rufinus explains that human beings as dominated by death and the devil because of their sins are freed because the death of Christ brings the possibility of forgiveness. Christ’s death was caused by the devil, who was lured into a conflict with him, but was then ‘hooked’, by the deity concealed beneath the humanity, which led to his resurrection.67 The outcome of Christ’s death is to make possible the forgiveness of sins for sinful human beings. He writes, ‘For he alone who knows 67. Rufinus interprets the capture of Leviathan (Ps. 74.14 and Job 41.1) and the monster in the sea (Ezek. 32.2-4) as predictive of this climatic event in salvation-history. See Gregory the Great, Moral xxxiii.7. ‘For the bait tempts that the point may wound. Our



5.   Christ’s Death as Means of Deliverance from Dominion of Satan 155

no stain of sin has destroyed the sins of all’ (Comm. in Symb. Ap. 16). The destruction of sin is the destruction of death, so that Satan, who had the power over death, is then forced to release those whom he formerly held bound. Augustine holds this view also, in addition to the two others explanations found in his writings (it seems that he was not completely clear on this matter). He causally connects the forgiveness of sins made possible by Christ’s death with the release from the power of Satan. Like other theologians, he holds that human beings were justly held under the power of Satan, under the condition of death, because of their sins. In addition, he believes that the devil was ultimately responsible for the death of Christ, even though he made use of human instruments to accomplish his purpose. The death of Christ, however, was unjust since Christ had no sin; the devil wrongly assumed that he was superior to Christ because Christ submitted to being killed. What he did not realize was that Christ voluntarily submitted to death out of love for human beings. Since he was not worthy of death, Christ’s blood then becomes the means by which human beings receive forgiveness of sins: ‘That innocent blood was shed for the forgiveness of our sins’ (De Trin. 13.14). Augustine also expresses this by saying that ‘the one and real sacrifice was offered up for us’ (De Trin. 4.13). In this way, he says that the devil was conquered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is to say Christ’s innocent suffering and death (De Trin. 13.14). He adds that the devil is the strong man who was conquered by Christ, alluding to Jesus’ saying in the gospels (Mt. 12.29; Mk 3.27; Lk. 11.21-22). This is what it means to be ‘justified in the blood of Christ’ and ‘rescued from the power of the devil through the forgiveness of sins’ (De Trin. 13.14). Now, because he killed Christ, the devil has no choice but to release human beings, since, because of Christ’s death, they now have forgiveness of their sins. Augustine writes, ‘Because the devil deservedly held those whom, as guilty of sin, he bound by the condition of death, he might deservedly loose them through him, whom, as guilty of no sin, the punishment of death undeservedly affected’ (De Trin. 13.15). He further explains, ‘And where he could do anything, there in every respect he was conquered; and wherein he received outwardly the power of slaying the Lord in the flesh, therein his inward power, by which he held ourselves, was slain. For it was brought to pass that the bonds of many sins in many deaths were loosed, through the one death of one which no sin had preceded’ (De Trin. 4.13).68

Lord, therefore, when coming for the redemption of mankind made as it were a kind of hook of himself for the death of the devil.’ 68. See Anselm’s reflections in Cur Deus Homo 1.22, 23.

Chapter 6

Testing of Theories of the Atonement It is the consensus of the New Testament and the early church fathers, for whom the New Testament has scriptural authority, that, although his generation bears responsibility for it, Christ’s death is also according to the will of God. It is not a historical accident but rather has a salvation-historical purpose. In particular, it is agreed that his death is for the soteriological benefit of human beings and necessitated by human sin.1 For this reason, the early church fathers correctly stress against the Gnostics the real physical suffering and death of Christ. The task of a Christian theologian is to formulate a complete expression of this foundational belief, which, as indicated, is usually called the doctrine of the atonement.2 In formulating a doctrine of the atonement insights into the biblical data are to be sought through acts of understanding, to use Lonerganian terminology.3 An inductive theological method accomplishes this by beginning with the individual data and then synthesizing them by placing them under generalizing concepts, all the while ensuring that no datum is omitted or distorted, especially by the introduction of unbiblical presuppositions or rejection of biblical ones. The use of generalizing concepts to synthesize the biblical data is methodologically permissible when they serve to make explicit what is implicit in the data. By adhering to an inductive theological methodology, the lack of terminological precision and recourse to theological jargon that so often characterizes theological debate can be eliminated. Now one may argue that a theologian should be content merely to set forth the biblical data as the doctrine of atonement. Such a biblicist theological method may be commendable for 1. As William Adamson put it, ‘The sins of men were reason or procuring cause of His sufferings, and but for them He would have had no agony, and would not have tasted death’ (The Nature of the Atonement [London: Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1880], p. 143). 2. Ralph Wardlaw defines atonement as ‘that in consideration of which sin pardoned, and the sinner received in favour and made participant of blessing’ (On the Extent and Nature of the Atonement of Christ [Glasgow: James MacLehose, 1843], p. 29). 3. See the use of the inductive method modelled on the scientific method by Thomas J. Crawford, The Doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the Atonement (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood & Sons, 1871) and Alfred Cave, The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877).



6.   Testing of Theories of the Atonement 157

its commitment to the authority of scripture, but the full intelligibility of the data can only come from their subsumption under more abstract and inclusive concepts. 1. Theories of the Atonement In the early period of the history of Christian theology, there is no systematic attempt to formulate a theory of the atonement.4 Rather, as was evident, what can be found in the writings of theologians from this period is occasional and disparate statements about the topic in different contexts, often occurring in connection with the exegesis of relevant scriptural passages.5 Four theories of what is known as the doctrine of the atonement eventually emerge in the history of Christian theology. These are conventionally called the Moral Influence, Governmental, Satisfaction (including penalsubstitutionary) and Christus Victor theories. In the previous chapters, the biblical data are laid out with a minimum of organization, and each datum is exegetically elucidated. The interpretation of the data by the early church fathers is also included. The task now is to determine how well each of the four theories synthesizes the data into a theory of the atonement. A theory will be considered successful if it does justice to the biblical data by neither excluding nor distorting any datum and if its generalizing concepts used to synthesize the data are readily seen as implicit in them. In addition, any theory that relies on a presupposition that is contrary to the biblical data will be judged to be deficient.6 Following this method may tend to 4. Under the influence of Romanticism, Adamson asserts, ‘The doctrine of the Atonement is of value, but is not so valuable as the fact of the Atonement. The latter is the Divine reality, and the former is the human thought concerning it’ (The Nature of the Atonement, p. 18; see also ‘human explanation of the fact’ [p. 21]). 5. Henry N. Oxenham, The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement (London: Longman et al., 1865); Bernhard Dörholt, Die Lehr von der Genugthuung Christi (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1891), pp. 62-139; J. Rivière, The Atonement (2 vols.; London Kegan Paul et al., 1909); Crawford, The Doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the Atonement, pp. 279-382; Cave, The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, pp. 325-48; Michael Winter, The Atonement (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1995); Robert W. Dale, The Atonement (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1875), pp. 265-309; Robert S. Franks, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ (2 vols.; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1871); J.K. Mozley, The Doctrine of the Atonement (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916), pp. 94-140; Hastings Rashdall, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology (London: MacMillan & Co., 1919); F.W. Dillistone, The Christian Understanding of Atonement (London: SCM Press, 1984). 6. It should be noted that English theologian Edward Irving proposes what could be called a fifth theory of the atonement. He claims that the incarnate Christ overcomes his own sinful nature by the power of the Holy Spirit, which effects a reconciliation of his human nature and will with the divine nature and will, what Irving likes to call

158

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

stifle theological creativity, but at the same time it precludes the possibility of adopting a theory of the atonement on the basis of personal preference. It is also to be stressed that it should not be assumed in advance that the four theories of the atonement are mutually exclusive; rather their incompatibility must be demonstrated. The Moral Influence theory of the atonement is associated with Peter Abelard, Socinianism, liberal Protestantism (e.g. A. Ritschl) and Unitarianism.7 It posits that Christ’s suffering and death has for its salvationhistorical purpose to convince sinful human beings of God’s love and as a result influence them towards confession of sin, seeking forgiveness and moral improvement.8 It is thought to be uniquely suited to bring to realization this intended soteriological benefit because it so poignantly testifies to God’s love, more than anything Christ does before his death. In some an ‘at-one-ment’ (‘The Doctrine of the Incarnation Opened, in Six Sermons’, in The Collected Writings of Edward Irving, vol. 5 [London: Alexander Strahan, 1865], pp. 114-257). As a result, there is introduced for human beings the possibility of a similar ‘at-one-ment’ by means of the Holy Spirit, which is appropriated in faith. This is the redemption of Christ. He writes, ‘We may say, therefore, that in the flesh of Christ, all flesh stood represented;—that, in the flesh of Christ all the infirmities, sin, and guilt, of all flesh was gathered into one; and in the great triumph which the Godhead attained over the confederate powers of darkness and of wickedness in the holy, blameless life of Christ, that sin was vanquished and condemned in the flesh, and Jesus became Lord of all livng flesh by right of redemption; and that He hath conveyed by His victorious life unto all men a redemption from the slavery and bondage of sin, which Satan had obtained for himself, and over which he held the power’ (p. 174). Irving disparages the Satisfaction theory, which he sarcastically calls ‘the debtor-and-creditor theology’ as either incomplete or just plain wrong or—it is not clear which view he holds. Irving’s theory is so contrary to the biblical data that it is a theological non-starter. As an indicator of its inadequacy at synthesizing the biblical data, there does not seem to be any salvation-historical reason for the death of Christ in his theory of the atonement, which is opposed to the view assumed by the New Testament. Similarly Michael Winter argues that no satisfaction for sins is required, but only the sincere request for forgiveness from God (The Atonement, pp. 87-99). He further asserts that Christ as representative of the human race has made this request for all: ‘It has been done for all of us by Jesus. Acting as the spokesman for the whole human race he has requested the reconciliation for us all’ (p. 91). In this way, he is a mediator or intercessor, which is said without explanation to include suffering (p. 98). Later he claims that Jesus’ inauguration of the new covenant is the ‘equivalent of asking for the forgiveness of the whole human race’ (p. 108). He claims that the cause of Jesus’ crucifixion was ‘the hostility of his enemies’ and not the will of God (p. 124). Such a view does not take into consideration all of the biblical data. 7. A recent restatement of what is essential the Moral Theory of the atonement is found in Paul Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation (Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1988). He writes about the necessity of taking into consideration the objective and subjective sides of the atonement, but he stresses too much the subjective side (pp. 26-28). 8. See Rashdall, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology, pp. 435-64.



6.   Testing of Theories of the Atonement 159

versions, Christ’s death is that of a martyr, bearing witness to his message that God has always been ready and willing to forgive sin. Schleiermacher’s view that Christ’s soteriological function is to urge people towards the same God-consciousness that he had can be classified as a version of the Moral Influence theory. The biblical data that support this theory are the assertions that Christ’s death is for others, that Christ’s death is redemptive in the sense of leading human beings to the forgiveness of sins, that it is the means by which human beings are reconciled to God, that forgiveness is causally tied to Christ, that Christ is i9lasmo&j for sins (1 Jn 2.2; 4.9-10) and that Christ is the typological fulfilment of the bronze snake that Moses lifted up. In addition, the assertion that Christ appeared in history in order to take away sins (1 Jn 3.5) can be interpreted as supportive of the Moral theory if it is understood as meaning to turn people from their sins towards repentance and forgiveness. The Moral Influence theory does not do justice to all the biblical data on the nature of the soteriological benefit that Christ’s death makes possible for human beings.9 It is clear that this benefit is much more than simply being a pedagogical instrument by which to demonstrate God’s love to human beings; on this the early church fathers are unanimous. In the formulation of the Moral Influence theory, many of the biblical data are either omitted or disingenuously distorted to mean considerably less than they actually do. A striking example of the latter is the interpretation given to Gal. 3.13 ‘having become a curse for us’. According to Bushnell, Paul’s point is not that ‘Christ’s chief errand is to satisfy God’s justice, and to prepare the forgiveness of sin’, but rather that to become a curse for us means ‘to come into the corporate state of evil, and bear it with us—faithful unto death for our recovery’.10 Similarly, John Campbell claims that Christ is a sacrifice only in the loose sense that he suffers because of his grief over the Father’s condemnation of the sins of human beings, his brothers: ‘the sacrifice of Christ, when His soul was made an offering for sin’.11 Christ’s death is a unique salvation-historical event, the purpose of which is much more than serving as a pedagogical device for demonstrating the love of God to human beings. It is not primarily intended to elicit a response of confession of sin, seeking forgiveness and moral improvement from human beings on the assumption that reconciliation is only of human beings to God. For this reason, Aquinas has a more complete and accurate view. He cites Wis. 14.9 ‘To God the 9. Crawford, The Doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the Atonement, pp. 280-93; D.M. Baillie, God Was in Christ (London: Faber & Faber, 1948). 10. Horace Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice (London: Strahan & Co., 1871), pp. 121, 442. 11. John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement (London: MacMillan & Co., 2nd edn, 1857), pp. 129-91 (149).

160

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike’ and Ps. 5.7[5] ‘You hate all the workers of iniquity’ as evidence that God can actually hate human beings because of their sins, and says that, insofar as he is a ‘most acceptable sacrifice to God’,12 Christ reconciles human beings by appeasing God (placetur Deus) ‘for every offense of the human race’ (ST 3.49.4).13 He holds that Christ reconciles sinners to God by taking away their sins. It would seem that only a casual commitment to the authority of scripture would allow one to adopt the Moral Influence theory of the atonement.14 A closer examination of the Moral Influence theory reveals that its defenders in fact rely upon a presupposition that is contradicted by the biblical data, namely that God forgives unconditionally; this in part is the cause of its distortion of the biblical data. Apart from human ignorance of the love of God, the Moral Influence theory assumes that there is no obstacle between God and human beings that needs to be removed.15 Appeal is often made to the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a paradigm for God’s relationship with human beings. This means that God should not be conceived as analogous to a creditor or injured party to whom restitution must be made. Rather, it is argued that a perfect God needs no basis on which to forgive sin. James Martineau writes, ‘The assertion that God cannot pardon and recall to goodness till he has expended his tortures upon the evil, seems to us a plain denial of his moral excellence’.16 There is a tendency for its proponents to hold a ‘karmic’ understanding of retribution, according to which nature itself rewards and punishes human beings by means of the inevitable and inviolable consequences of good and bad behavior.17 If one thing is clear from the biblical data, however, it is that God does not forgive sins without what could be called an objective ground, which is Christ’s suffering and death.18 In the biblical data this generalizing conclusion is expressed 12. Deo sacrificium acceptissimum. 13. super omni offensa generis humani. 14. See Wardlaw, On the Nature and Extent of the Atonement of Christ. 15. For a critique of the Socinian view of the atonement, see William Symington, On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: William Whyte & Co., 2nd edn, 1834), pp. 18-82. See Emil Brunner, The Mediator: London and Redhill: Lutterworth, 1934), p. 484. 16. James Martineau, Studies of Christianity (Boston: American Unitarian Association, 1870), p. 188; see Frederick D. Maurice, ‘On the Atonement’, in Theological Essays (London and New York: MacMillan & Co., 3rd edn, 1871), pp. 128-51. 17. See John Young, The Light and Life of Men (New York: Alexander Strahan, 1866); Robert W. Dale , The Atonement (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1875), pp. 311-51. 18. The term ‘objective ground’ is used by Dale, The Atonement. He holds that it is indisputable that there is a direct relation between the death of Christ and the remission of sins (see p. 314). He also distinguishes the fact that Christ’s death is objective ground of ‘remission of sins’ from the theories about the mode by which how the two are connected. The problem with this view is that the so-called fact of the atonement is already



6.   Testing of Theories of the Atonement 161

variously by asserting that Christ dies the death of the Isaian servant, is a sacrifice, suffers for sins, the righteous for he unrighteous (1 Pet. 3.18), is cursed (Gal. 3.13), is made sin (2 Cor. 5.21), nails the certificate of indebtedness to the cross (Col. 2.13b-14) and is a price paid or ransom. Paul’s statement that God condemned sin in the flesh can also be added to the list (Rom. 8.3). It is impossible to interpret these data in a way other than that Christ’s death is the objective ground of the realization of God’s soteriological benefit for human beings, which on the Moral theory is identified primarily as forgiveness. The basis on which God can forgive sins is Christ’s suffering and death. As the author of Hebrews explains succinctly, ‘Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins’ (9.22). Expressed differently, the Moral Influence theory does not adequately take account of the tension between God as merciful and as righteous judge. Any successful theory of the atonement should explain how the suffering and death of Christ resolves this tension on the side of God as merciful.19 In addition, the Moral Influence theory is saddled with the insurmountable difficulty of explaining why an omnipotent God would require that Christ be unjustly killed in order to accomplish his salvation-historical ends. One would think that there must be some other way for God to bring his pedagogical purpose to realization, such as direct spiritual enlightenment. In fact, it is even questionable whether Christ’s suffering and death is an effective instrument by which to convince human beings of the love of God at all, since it has proven to be, as Paul indicates, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the gentiles (1 Cor. 1.18, 23).20 This anomaly suggests that there is more to Christ’s suffering and death than being a pedagogical device. In response to Socinianism, Hugo Grotius sets forth for what is known as the Governmental theory of the atonement in his Defensio fidei catholicae de satisfactione Christi (it is also sometimes called the Rectorial theory).21 It has had wide appeal among certain sectors of Christianity, being perceived as a via media between two undesirable theological extremes. In support of the orthodox position, Grotius argues against Socinianism that God cannot grant forgiveness unconditionally and, as expected, he identifies that condition as Christ’s suffering and death.22 This, as indicated, is a partially formed doctrine or theory of the atonement. See also Brunner, The Mediator, pp. 435-535. 19. See Exod. 34.6-7; Deut. 4.1; 5.33; 6.24-25; 8.1; 11.26-28; 28.1-14; 30.15-20. Peter T. Forsyth refers to God’s ‘holy love’, and insists that holiness which entails judgment (The Work of Christ [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910], p. 79). 20. It needs to be appreciated how absurd and offensive it would be in the ancient world to proclaim what Paul calls the ‘word of the cross’ (1 Cor 1.18). 21. A Defense of the Catholic Faith on the Satisfaction Rendered by Christ. 22. Against the Socinians, who reject it, Grotius argues that the use of the term

162

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

in accordance with the biblical data: Christ’s suffering and death is the objective ground of the realization of God’s soteriological benefit, which for this theory is forgiveness also. The early church fathers agree with this position. Grotius’ view as to how Christ’s suffering and death makes forgiveness possible, however, is somewhat idiosyncratic.23 He argues that, contrary to the Socinian distortion of the traditional view, God should not be thought of as an offended party, but as a ruler, for only a ruler has the right to inflict punishment. He writes, ‘For to inflict punishment, or to liberate any one from punishment whom you can punish (which the Scripture calls justifying), is only the prerogative of the ruler as such, primarily and per se’.24 In addition, the right of punishment possessed by a ruler is not for the sake of the one who punishes, but for the sake of the common good: ‘the preservation of order, and giving an example’.25 As a just ruler, God put himself under the obligation of upholding the moral order by punishing sin. The Governmental view of the atonement stands between the two extremes of Socinianism and what John Miley calls Satisfactionism.26 On the one hand, in rebuttal of the Socinian criticism that God should not be viewed as unable and/or unwilling to forgive freely, Grotius claims that God as just ruler cannot do so because it would undermine the moral order. God is not an offended party who could forfeit his rights to ownership or the right over the thing loaned, but a ruler who must have concern for the common good. On the other hand, different from the Satisfaction theory, God is free to forgive unconditionally as long as the moral order is not undermined. satisfaction is justified because it serves as a general category under which to subsume the biblical data. He writes, ‘For in law and common usage that word signifies the exhibition of some deed or thing, from which not indeed ipso facto, but by a succeeding act of the will, liberation follows; and it is commonly employed in this sense not only of pecuniary debts, but also of crimes’ (A Defence of the Catholic Faith, p. 142). He identifies four specific categories that can be subsumed under ther general term satisfaction: ‘The first class will contain words which designate the averting of wrath; the second, those which indicate a liberation made by redemption, or the giving of a price; the third, those which carry an intimation of surrogation ; the fourth, those which ascribe to the death of Christ the efficacy of an expiatory sacrifice’ (A Defence of the Catholic Faith, pp. 142-43). Grotius uses the term satisfaction, however, in a different sense than is normally used, which causes confusion; it would be better for him to use another term. 23. According to Cave, it is the use of the legal analogy of God as just ruler that led Grotius into error (The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, p. 344). 24. Hugo Grotius, A Defence of the Catholic Faith concerning the Satisfaction of Christ (Andover: Draper, 1889), p. 51. 25. Grotius, A Defence of the Catholic Faith, p. 64. 26. John Miley, The Atonement in Christ (New York: Eaton and Mains, 1907); Wardlaw, On the Extent and Nature of the Atonement of Christ, pp. 38-80. Grotius uses the term satisfaction to describe what Christ effects by means of his suffering and death (as in the title of his book), but it is not a satisfaction in the proper sense.



6.   Testing of Theories of the Atonement 163

According to the Governmental theory, the expedient of Christ’s suffering and death allows God to forgive sin without undermining the moral order; this is the soteriological benefit that it makes possible.27 In this way God removes the ‘legal obstacle’ to forgiving human beings.28 By allowing Christ to be crucified, God demonstrates his anger and disapproval of sin: what Christ suffers is what sinners deserve to suffer under the just judgment of the ruler of creation. Christ’s obedience even unto death is said to be honoring to God’s Law.29 In this way, God can forgive sin while upholding the moral order and thereby maintain the common good. If God simply forgave sins freely, then the moral order would be undermined because the law’s authority would be eroded since there would be no consequences to sin. It can be said that Christ’s suffering and death satisfies justice, but this is public justice, not retributive justice. Likewise it can be called a substitute for the punishment due to human beings in the sense that it is an alternative to it. What is rejected is that Christ is a substitute in the sense that he assumes the punishment that is due to human beings. In agreement with Socinianism, it is held that sin and its guilt cannot be separated from each other and neither one can be transferred from one person to another, so that the idea that Christ could be punished in the place of another is nonsensical. Besides such an exigency, conventionally called satisfaction for sin, is unnecessary, since God in his mercy can will to relax his laws and thereby forgive sin. Grotius’s rationale for this position is that ‘the law is not something internal within God, or the will of God itself, but only an effect of that will’.30 God can will to enforce a law but, so long as the moral order is not undermined, he can also in mercy will to relax the same law, so that punishment does not follow inevitably upon its violation (these Grotius calls ‘positive laws’ in the sense of not being absolute and so irrevocable). Moreover, God can and does will to add a condition to the forgiveness of sins. The condition that God imposes is faith in Christ, but potentially any other condition could have been imposed. In four of its central affirmations the Governmental theory of the atonement is at variance with the biblical data; for this reason, it proves to be an inadequate synthesis of them. First, to use scholastic terminology, a central affirmation of the Government theory is that Christ’s death is merely the per accidens efficient cause of the forgiveness of sins, because it is joined accidentally to the per se efficient cause, which is God’s mercy. The biblical data, however, assume that Christ’s suffering and death is the per se 27. See James Murdock, Nature of the Atonemet (Andover: Flagg & Gould, 1823). 28. James Morison, The Nature of the Atonement (Edingurgh: M. Paterson, 1841), p. 38. 29. Morison, The Nature of the Atonment, pp. 41-42. 30. Grotius, A Defence of the Catholic Faith, p. 75.

164

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

efficient cause of the forgiveness of sin, in the sense that the effect directly and necessarily depends on it for its possibility. In other words, there is a necessary relation between Christ’s suffering and death and God’s soteriological benefit for human beings, which this theory identifies as the forgiveness of sin. The notion that God’s real purpose for Christ’s suffering and death is in order to maintain the moral order is nowhere to be found in the biblical data. To put it differently, on the Governmental theory, it is erroneously asserted that the suffering and death of Christ is only the instrumental efficient cause of atonement and not the principal efficient cause because the relation between Christ’s suffering and death and the forgiveness of sin is based on the need not to undermine the moral order. If there were some other means of accomplishing this, then hypothetically Christ would not need to suffer and die.31 By contrast, it is clear that the biblical data present Christ’s suffering and death as having inherent or intrinsic value.32 Indication that Christ’s suffering and death is not merely a per accidens or instrumental efficient cause is that it does not in fact uphold the moral order but actually undermines it because of the injustice of Christ’s crucifixion. It would have been better for God to use the suffering and death an unrepentant sinner to accomplish the goal of demonstrating how serious a matter it is to violate divine law; using the death of a righteous man only causes confusion and even moral revulsion. This theological anomaly is an indication that the Government theory is not a successful synthesis of the biblical data.33 A second central affirmation of the Government theory at variance with the biblical data is that God is not to be understood as an offended party but rather as a ruler concerned to uphold the moral order. Contrary to this view, however, God is depicted in the biblical data as personally offended by sin. His anger is a predictable reaction to what is intrinsically evil and is not

31. An equally effective means might be natural phenomena that instill terror in human beings, similar to what God used when he gave the Law to the Israelites: ‘All the people perceived the thunder and the lightning flashes and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood at a distance’ (Exod. 20.18; see Deut. 4.11; 5.22). 32. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (3 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner, 1872), II, pp. 482-83. 33. A.A. Hodge criticizes the Governmental theory as being too vague and imprecise: ‘Its positions are possible only when vaguely and generally stated. When a strict account is asked as to what is meant by “substitute for a penalty”, or as to the connection between the non-penal sufferings of an innocent person and the forgiveness of the unpunished sins of the guilty subjects of divine government, no answer is made, and we venture to assert that upon theory no answer is possible’ (The Atonement [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1867], p. 21; see pp. 327-46).



6.   Testing of Theories of the Atonement 165

indiscriminate and arbitrary.34 The fact that Christ is said to be i9lasth&rion requires that God be understood as needing propitiation because of his anger towards human sins.35 Likewise the use of the metaphor of sacrifice in order to explain the salvation-historical significance of Jesus’s death assumes that God is changed in his personal disposition towards sinners. The notion that God is to be compared to a utilitarian politician whose real concern about sin is that it disrupts the common good runs counter to the depiction of Yhwh in Hebrew Bible, which, of course, is in agreement with that found in the biblical data examined. Moses must intercede for the Israelites after the golden-calf incident because Yhwh is so angry that he is ready to destroy all the people and raise up a new people from Moses’ descendants (Exod 32.10-14; see Num. 11, 14, 16). Likewise, Yhwh compares himself in Hosea to a husband distressed by his wife’s persistent infidelity, symbolizing the Israelites. This clearly is not the depiction of a ruler whose only interest is the common good. However the theological issue of the passions and mutability of God is resolved, it is not the case that God’s concern about human sins is merely governmental or rectorial.36 The third central affirmation of the Governmental theory of the atonement to be repudiated is that God can relax the Law at will and the only reason that he does not do it all the time is a concern to uphold the moral order. Again there is nothing in the biblical data that would support the view that God’s concern for the common good is all that prevents him from forgiving sins. Rather, as already mentioned, the data support the position that God cannot forgive sins without an objective ground, one that is, as indicated, a per se efficient cause; in the data examined this is identified as Christ’s suffering and death, a view with which the early church fathers unanimously agree. Besides, if the Law is summed up as the obligation to love (as Jesus and then Paul affirm) and God is love (1 Jn 4.8), then the theological anomaly arises that, if he relaxes the law, then God contradicts his own nature. It follows that, contrary to Grotius’s claim, the Law is 34. Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), pp. 161-66; John R.W. Stott, Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), pp. 87-110. 35. Brunner writes, ‘This is His holy divine wrath, the negative aspect of the Divine Holiness. The divine wrath corresponds to our guilt and sin. Whether man’s relation to God is really conceived in personal terms or not is proved by the fact of the recognition of the divine wrath as the objective correlate to human sin. This, then, is the obstacle which alienates us from God. It is no merely apparent obstacle, no mere misunderstanding; this separation is an objective reality, the two-fold reality of human guilt and divine wrath’ (The Mediator, p. 445). Unfortunately, Brunner does not make use of the whole gamut of biblical data to interpret how Christ’s death is atoning, resisting the idea that his sacrificial death is what he calls a ‘transaction’. 36. See Symington, On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ, p. 28.

166

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

something internal to God, which explains the fact that God is offended personally at sin and not just for utilitarian reasons. The final central affirmation of the Government theory that must be rejected is that neither sin nor guilt can be transferred from one person to another. This is difficult to maintain in light of the biblical data. As will be explained below, many of these data indicate in various ways that the opposite is the case. To argue from analogy based on human judicial procedure that an innocent person cannot assume the guilt of another begs the question with respect to how God must relate to sinful human beings. In conclusion, in spite of claiming to be in opposition to Socianism and using the same theological terms as Protestant orthodoxy, the Government theory is actually closer to the former than the latter. Unlike the Moral Influence theory, the Satisfaction theory of the atonement begins from the biblical presupposition that human sins are an obstacle in the relationship between human beings and God. The term satisfaction (satisfactio) is used to denote that by which restitution to God is made for those sins, which the advocates of the Satisfaction theory identify as the suffering and death of Christ.37 (Some may prefer to use the term atonement, rather than satisfaction.) The term satisfaction admittedly is not biblical, but as a generalizing term it does nonetheless function to provide insight into those biblical data that identify Christ’s suffering and death as the objective ground of God’s soteriological benefit to human beings, as delineated above, synthesizing them under a single concept: as that objective ground, Christ’s suffering and death makes satisfaction for sins. In the biblical data, the result of Christ’s satisfaction is described variously as being brought to God (1 Pet. 3.18), having sin condemned in the flesh (Rom. 8.3), being justified, receiving righteousness from God, becoming the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5.21), being forgiven all our trespasses (Col. 2.13b), and receiving expiation and redemption in the sense of forgiveness by means of Christ’s suffering and death. It is important to point out that God’s love for human beings is the reason and not the result of Christ’s satisfaction. God takes the salvation-historical initiative to provide satisfaction for the sins of human beings; Christ is not a third party interposed between sinful human beings and an angry God reluctant to be appeased (see Gal. 4.4; 1 Jn 4.14; Jn 3.16; Rom. 8.32). As explained already, this is the meaning of Paul’s statement that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor. 5.19). Although the term satisfaction is already in use before his time, Anselm is credited with being the first to formulate a version of the Satisfaction 37. Symington defines the atonement as ‘that perfect satisfaction given to the law and the justice of God, by the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, on behalf of the elect sinners of mankind, on account of which they are delivered from condemnation’ (On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ, p. 7). See Hodge, The Atonement, pp. 31-34.



6.   Testing of Theories of the Atonement 167

theory of the atonement.38 Like other theologians, he does so in part in order to explain the purpose of the incarnation, which is reflected in the title of his work on the atonement: Cur Deus homo (1.1; 2.18). In the formulation of his theory Anselm relies upon the foundational metaphor of God as feudal lord whose personal honor is violated; either God’s honor is restored or punishment must ensue for those who owe him a debt of obedience (1.12, 13). He explains, ‘It is impossible for God to lose his honor; for either the sinner pays his debt of his own accord, or, if he refuse, God takes it from him’ (1.14). Of necessity God maintains his own honor, like any self-respecting feudal lord (2.5). Anselm defines sin as not paying to God what is due to him, which is the subjection of the created will to his will; not to do so results in dishonoring God (1.11). Because of sin, God is unable to bestow on human beings the blessedness (beatitudo) that he intends. Anselm holds that God cannot simply choose to forgive sinners without satisfaction for their sins, since this would make God unjust and untruthful (1.12). No human being, however, could ever make satisfaction to God, not only because of original sin, but also because he already owes to God everything and to make satisfaction requires giving more than the original obligation, as an extra compensation for the injury of sin. Anselm writes, ‘Therefore you make no satisfaction unless you restore something greater than the amount of that obligation, which should restrain you from committing the sin’ (1.21-23). According to him, only the God-man can make such a satisfaction: only a man can make payment to God and only God can make an adequate payment, which is to say an infinite payment (2.14). The God-man alone can give to God something as great as God (2.6). His death can excel the sins of all mankind, since the life of Christ is more precious than the sins are odious (2.14). For this reason, salvation apart from Christ is impossible (1.24).39 Christ did not die because of any debt of his own (2.10); rather he voluntarily submitted to death for the sake of righteousness, to the honor of God and according to the will of God: ‘Therefore must this gift be understood in this way, that he somehow gives up himself, or something of his, to the honor of God, which he did not owe as a debtor’ (2.11). Using the model of a subject’s relation 38. See Francis Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae II, loc. decimus quartus, 11.24; L.W. Grensted, A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1920), pp. 120-43; William Thomson, The Atoning Work of Christ (London: Longman et al., 1853), pp. 160-75; Dale, The Atonement, pp. 278-84; Oxenham, The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement, pp. 72-107; Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. 6 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1899), pp. 54-83; Rivière, The Atonement, II, pp. 14-49. 39. Unlike the martyrs, Christ is unique because no one ever gave such a gift to God: ‘No man except this one ever gave to God what he was not obliged to lose, or paid a debt he did not owe’ (2.19).

168

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

to his lord, Anselm holds that Christ deserves a reward for dying for the sake of righteousness, thereby giving God a gift; in fact, God must reward the son, for otherwise God would be unjust (2.19). Anselm assumes that a reward given to those who freely choose to do some laudatory act can be transferred to others. As God, Christ has no need of a reward; as a result, he is in a position to transfer that reward to human beings, which is appropriate since he himself is a man (2.19-20). Anselm makes little use of the scripture in formulating his theory of the atonement, preferring rather to argue from reason (see 2.11). In fact, as intimated, he substitutes for the biblical data the foundational metaphor of God as a feudal lord whose honor is violated by not receiving what is owed to him from his subjects.40 Such a metaphor is misleading since sin becomes personal affront to God’s honor rather than violation of divine law, contrary to the view assumed in the biblical data. It gives rise to the valid objection that God could simply cancel the debt owed to his divine honor since it is his prerogative to do so; in this case being merciful would take precedence over being just and truthful.41 The adoption of the feudal-lord metaphor also accounts for the idea that human beings owe an extra compensation to God for their sins, which they could never pay. Another unbiblical concept deriving from the same metaphor is that Christ earns a reward for his gift to God of dying for the sake of righteousness, to the honor of God, and that this reward can be transferred to another because he, the original recipient, has no need of it. In addition, Anselm’s claim that only the God-man could provide satisfaction for sins is far too speculative, although many theologians have adopted his view that sin is infinite because God, against whom it is an offense, is infinite and therefore requires an infinite satisfaction.42 This is not to say that Duns Scotus’s view that the merit of Christ’s passion is finite is correct (Sent. 3.19-20).43 Rather, the question of whether the merit of Christ’s passion is finite or infinite must be rejected as unanswerable by the biblical data and perhaps even as a legitimate theological question. In conclusion, Anselm’s expression of the Satisfaction theory does not adequately synthesize the biblical data.44 40. Vernon White, Atonement and Incarnation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 27. 41. Cave, The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, pp. 339-40. 42. See Augustine, De Trin. 13.10; Aquinas ST 3.1.2, ad. ii. Aquinas writes, ‘Because a sin committed against God has a kind of infinity from the infinity of the Divine majesty, because the greater the person we offend, the more grievous the offense. Hence for condign satisfaction it was necessary that the act of the one satisfying should have an infinite efficiency, as being of God and man’. 43. See Hodge, Systematic Theology, II, pp. 485-89; Stott, Cross of Christ, pp. 111-63. 44. Contrary to James Denney’s glowing assessment of Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo:



6.   Testing of Theories of the Atonement 169

Subsequent to Anselm, the theological concept of satisfaction is usually extricated from his feudal-lord metaphor and used by most theologians in this abbreviated form to communicate the general idea of Christ’s making restitution to God for the sins of human beings by bearing the punishment of all human sins.45 It becomes a theological convention to say that Christ’s suffering and death serves as a satisfaction for sins. Likewise the terms merit (mertium) or merits (merita) of Christ is used to denote that whereby Christ’s suffering and death is a satisfaction. What is generally lacking in many post-Anselmian expressions of the Satisfaction theory of the atonement, however, is conceptual precision, indicating an incomplete synthesis of the biblical data. Bonaventure uses the terms ‘satisfaction’ (satisfactio) and ‘to satisfy’ (satisfacere) in relation to Christ’s suffering and death but without defining the terms (Comm. sent. 3.20 [unicus]). In the fifth question, he asserts that the passion and death of Christ is the most fitting method of satisfaction for God to accept for four reasons. First, it is the most acceptable for appeasing God because, as Anselm argues, death is the greatest act that could be done to the honor of God. Second, it is the most suitable for curing the disease of sin since a disease is cured by its opposite and the opposite of man’s sin is Christ’s abjection, humiliation and fulfilling of the divine will. Third, the passion and death of Christ is most effectual at attracting human beings without violating their free wills, as John 12.32 ‘I will draw all human beings to myself’ indicates. Fourth, it is the wisest means by which to overcome the enemy of the human race, because, whereas he overcame the human race by treachery, Satan was overcome by prudence.46 Although he identifies Christ’s passion and death as the modus satisfaciendi accepted by God, Bonaventure does not explain the causal connection between them. Likewise, Aquinas uses the terms ‘satisfaction’ (satisfactio) and ‘to satisfy’ (satisfacere) with equal imprecision in his treatment of Christ’s passion (ST 3.46-49). He writes, ‘He [Christ] properly satisfies for an offense who offers something that the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race’ (3.48.2). He then quotes 1 Jn 2.2 ‘He is the propitiation for our sins’ etc., which implies that for him to be a satisfaction is the semantic equivalent of the biblical term propitiation ‘the truest and greatest book on the Atonement that has ever been written’ (The Atonement and the Modern Mind [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1903], p. 84). 45. As Thomson points out, Anselm understands Christ as making satisfaction positively by obeying on behalf of human beings and thereby obtaining a reward, rather than negatively as being punished on their behalf (Thomson, The Atoning Work of Christ, pp. 166-67). This is different from subsequent versions of the Satisfaction theory, which are, in fact, more biblical. 46. Oxenham, The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement, pp. 92-94.

170

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

(propitiatio). In addition, for Aquinas redemption (redemptio) is a complimentary theological term to satisfaction: ‘Now Christ made satisfaction, not by giving money or anything of the sort, but by bestowing what was of greatest price—himself—for us. And therefore Christ’s Passion is called our redemption’ (3.48.4). The same is true for the term sacrifice (sacrificium): defined as something done in order to appease God, Christ’s passion can be said to be a sacrifice (3.48.3). Sometimes he uses the metaphor of a debt (reatus) that human beings owe for past sins. In short, Aquinas’s account of how Christ’s suffering and death is a satisfaction for sins lacks systematic rigor. The penal-substitutionary version of the Satisfaction theory of the atonement is the most systematic and complete expression of the theory.47 It begins from the valid insight that Christ’s suffering and death is a satisfaction for the sins of human beings but adds the refinement that this satisfaction is penal-substitutionary in nature.48 This version of the Satisfaction theory derives from the Reformers and subsequent Protestant theologians, who formulate it as a means of supporting their view of justification against Roman Catholic opposition.49 Shedd defines the theory succinctly as ‘the 47. See Thomas R. Schreiner, ‘Penal Substitution View’, in James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (eds.), The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Downers Grove, \IL: InterVarsity, 2006), pp. 67-98; Robert Letham, The Work of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993). In spite of some apparent sympathies with it, Karl Barth does not hold the traditional Reformed view of the penalty-substitutionary version of the Satisfaction theory (CD IV.1 [esp. pp. 211-84]). He does not espouse a true penal interpretation of Christ’s death, but rather makes general statements to the effect that Christ receives judgment on himself and suffers the punishment that human beings ought to suffer without identifying this as penal. In fact he rejects the idea that Christ’s death ‘“satisfied” or offered satisfaction to the wrath of God’, in Anselmian fashion (p. 253). He writes, ‘The decisive thing is not that He has suffered what we ought to have suffered so that we do not have to suffer it, the destruction to which we have fallen victim by our guilt, and therefore the punishment which we deserve. This is true, of course. But it is true only as it derives from the decisive thing that in the suffering and death of Jesus Christ it has come to pass that in His own person He has made an end of us as sinners and therefore of sin itself by going to death as the One who took our place as sinners. In His person He has delivered up us sinners and sin itself to destruction’ (p. 253). 48. Both the Council of Trent (et pro nobi Deo patri satisfecit [14.8]) and the Augsburg Confession (sua morte pro nostris peccatis satisfecit ([art. 3]) make use of the concept of Christ as satisfaction, but differ from each other in whether that satisfaction is penal and substitutionary or not. 49. John MacLeod Campbell rejects the penal-substitutional theory of the atonement as held by Calvin and Edwards in favor of his own theory, which is closest to the Governmental theory. He asserts that the incarnate Christ experiences the Father’s condemnation of human sins and thereby suffers: ‘the holy sorrow in which He bore the burden of our sins’ (p. 136). He explains further, ‘These sufferings are the divine feelings in relation to sin, made visible to us by being present in suffering flesh’ (p.  141). In



6.   Testing of Theories of the Atonement 171

satisfaction of Divine justice for the sin of man, by the substituted penal sufferings of the Son of God’.50 As their substitute, Christ takes upon himself the judicial consequences of the sins of human beings, which is to say, the penalty of those sins. Like satisfaction, the two terms ‘penal’ and ‘substitutionary’ do not appear in the biblical data. There is, however, no a priori objection to the use of such unbiblical generalizing terms so long as they function to synthesize the biblical data concerning the meaning of Christ’s suffering and death. As is already evident, its two central tenets can be found in an unsystematic form in the early church fathers, appearing in their exegesis the New Testament passages on which the theory is based. There are some biblical data that assert that Christ’s suffering and death is substitutionary in the narrow sense that he suffers and dies instead of or in the place of human beings.51 The term vicarious could also be used as a synonym. The descriptor ‘substitutionary’ functions to synthesize certain biblical data, bringing them under a single concept. First, to compare Christ to a sacrifice requires that his death be understood as substitutionary, since this is the nature of a sacrifice. The death of the animal offered is in the place of the offerer; there is an exchange of statuses between them. There are several ways in which Christ’s death is described as a sacrifice in the biblical data. It is said in general to be a sacrifice and is also described as propitiatory or a propitiation, by which is meant a propitiatory sacrifice (Rom. 3.25). In addition, in Hebrews Christ is both High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek and also the sacrifice offered in order to make possible the forgiveness promised as part of the new covenant. Finally, the death of Christ is interpreted as the typological fulfilment of the original response to this, he confesses those sins repents of them (The Nature of the Atonement [London: MacMillan & Co., 2nd edn, 1857], pp. 129-91). The result is what Campbell calls ‘expiatory confession’, ‘equivalent repentance’ or ‘atoning confession of sin’. He writes, ‘And in that perfect response He absorbs it [i.e. that sin]’ (p. 149). This is what makes Christ a mediator or intercessor; Christ’s confession and repentance of human sins is credited to human beings. The objective basis of forgiveness of sins is Christ’s repentance not his death, which, of course, is contradicted by the biblical data. See Oliver D. Crisp, ‘John MacLeod Campbell and Non-penal Substitution’, in Retrieving Doctrine (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010), pp. 92-115. R.C. Moberly has a similar view, according to which, by so completely identifying himself with human beings, Christ assuming the role of the ‘perfect penitent’, makes a vicarious penitence, which leads to atonement. True penitence can only be performed by one who is sinless, which Christ the incarnate son of God is. Moberly repudiates the idea of retributive punishment (Atonement and Personality [London: John Murray, 1909]). Like Camplbell’s theory, Moberly’s proposal is not based on the biblical data. 50. William G.T. Shedd, A History of Christian Doctrine (2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 10th edn, 1891), II, p. 204. 51. James Denney, The Death of Christ (New York and London: Hodder and Stoughton, rev. edn, 1911), pp. 243-68.

172

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Passover offerings, which likewise is connected to the realization of the new covenant. Second, Peter’s assertion that Christ suffered for sins, ‘the righteous for the unrighteous’, is a statement that Christ’s death is substitutionary: Christ dies because of human sins and suffers in the place of those who committed those sins (1 Pet. 3.18). Third, for God to condemn sin in the flesh in the sense that God condemned his son as sinful instead of those who actually sinned is likewise to describe Christ’s death as substitutionary (Rom. 8.3). Finally, to pay a price or give a ransom for human beings is to provide for them what they lack and cannot provide for themselves, which is obedience to God. Insofar as it is the price paid or ransom for that lack of obedience, Christ’s death can be said to be substitutionary. The early church fathers correctly recognize that the New Testament idea of Christ’s death as a price paid or ransom implies that it is a substitute for the death that was due to human beings because of their sins. The reason that Christ’s suffering and death is substitutionary is that it is penal: as a satisfaction for the demands of divine retributive justice, Christ in his suffering and death assumes the sins of human beings and the judicial consequences of those sins.52 In other words, his suffering and death is accepted by God the righteous judge as the penalty owing for all human sins.53 A human being can become righteous either by precept or penalty. The former denotes obeying the Law fully, which is impossible, whereas the latter is submission to the penalty for not obeying the Law. No one, however, can pay the penalty for his own sins, but Christ can and does.54 Although this is the most disputed aspect of the penal-substitutionary version of the Satisfaction theory, this generalizing conclusion is supported by five biblical data: it represents an insight into data that may first appear to be disparate. If the word penal is rejected as an appropriate synthesizing term, then another term that is virtually synonymous with it would have to be found. First, Christ is identified as the Isaian servant and as such is said to assume the guilt and judicial consequences of the sins of the many in his 52. This is contrary to the view of Vincent Taylor, who writes, ‘In St. Paul’s teaching Christ’s death is substitutionary in the sense that He did for us that which we can never do for ourselves, but not in the sense that He transfers our punishment to Himself’ (The Cross of Christ [London: Macmillan & Co, 1956], p. 31). See also Colin E. Gunton, The Actuality of the Atonement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988); Richard Swinburne, Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), part II; Maurice Wiles, The Remaking of Christian Doctrine (London: SCM Press, 1974), p. 66; Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation, pp. 83-111. 53. John Calvin writes, ‘The guilt, which held us liable to punishment, was transferred to the head of the Son of God’ (Instit. 2.16.5). See Henry Wace, The Sacrifice of Christ (New York: Macmillan, 1898). 54. John Edmund Cox, Protestantism Contrasted with Romanism (2 vols.; London: Longman et al., 1852), I, p. 369.



6.   Testing of Theories of the Atonement 173

suffering and death; his death is accepted as the penalty for those sins. In so doing he is said to be a guilt-offering, which is to say, a compensatory equivalent given to God for the transgressions of the many (Isa. 53.10). His death as the servant is also said to be the means by which the many are justified, in the sense of being acquitted in judgment. Second, to interpret the death of Christ as a sacrifice is not only to affirm that it is substitutionary, but also that it is penal in nature, because sacrifices function to remove the guilt resulting from the violations of the Law. The fact that the priest expiates for the offerer and that the offerer is forgiven implies that the penalty of the sin for which the sacrifice is offered is nullified by means of the sacrifice. Third, as recognized by many of the early church fathers, the fact that Christ is said to be cursed because he is hung on a tree indicates that in dying on the cross he bears the judicial consequences of the sins of human beings. Sin is a violation of the Law, either the written Law or the law written on the heart (conscience); its violation results in coming under the curse of the Law, which is the penalty of sin. Christ assumes the curse of the Law in the place of those who actually deserve to be cursed. Fourth, as the early church fathers make clear, when he says that the sinless Christ is made sin, Paul means that there was a judicial transfer of the sins of human beings to himself, an exchange of statuses. The result is that by his suffering and death Christ assumes the sins of human beings and the judicial consequences of them, which is the penalty of those sins (2 Cor. 5.21). Fifth, the statement that by means of his death on the cross Christ cancels the certificate of indebtedness that stood against us, consisting of regulations, is a unique way of expressing that his death results in the nullification of the judicial consequences of sins (Col. 2.13b-14). It is the means by which the human ‘debt’ of obedience to God is cancelled insofar Christ in his death assumes the penalty of that debt. These five data can be synthesized under the generalizing concept that Christ’s death is penal insofar as he assumes the sins of human beings and their judicial consequences.55 Only the penal-substitutionary version of the Satisfaction theory of the atonement does justice to the datum that the soteriological benefit made possible by Christ’s death is that a human being can be justified in the 55. Vernon White’s claim that ‘until God himself has experienced suffering, death and the temptation to sin, and overcome them, as a human individual, he has no moral authority to overcome them in and with the rest of humanity’ is highly speculative, far exceeding the biblical data (Atonement and Incarnation, p. 39). His purpose of establishing ‘the Christ event’ as what he calls a ‘constitutive action (for God) in his reconciling activity throughout history’ (as opposed to a non-constitutive, merely revelatory action) is commendable, but his claim about what was necessary for God to be able to ‘bring suffering, sinning humanity to reconciliation and redemption’ is groundless (Atonement and Incarnation, pp. 39-40; see pp. 52-53). It is better to say nothing than to enter into such speculation. See also Paul Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation, p. 110.

174

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

sense of being declared to be without guilt (in Paul’s letters—Galatians and Romans in particular—and Isa. 53.11b). The same is true of the datum that specifies the benefit as receiving righteousness from God or even becoming the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5.21). As explained above, Christ’s death as penal-substitutionary means that he assumes the sins of human beings and the judicial consequences of those sins, their penalty. On this basis, God can then justify human beings or can confer on them a status of righteousness. Insofar as Christ bears the penalty of their sins, human beings can be declared to be without guilt or receive a status of righteousness from God by virtue of no longer having guilt. By contrast, the Moral Influence theory cannot explain why being justified or receiving righteousness from God is necessary and even rejects it as impossible anyway; for its advocates, the only problem that requires remedying is human ignorance of the unconditional love of God. As indicated, this theory of the atonement wrongly denies that any objective ground is required for God to forgive sins and therefore that there can be any change of judicial status of a human being as a result.56 If it is included at all in the formulation of its theory of the atonement, being justified or receiving righteousness from God could only be synonyms for being forgiven, which represents a considerable loss of meaning. Likewise, the Governmental theory has difficulty synthesizing the same biblical data. On this theory the problem to be overcome is not with human guilt, since God is willing to forgive unconditionally with no satisfaction for sins required, but with the necessity of upholding the moral order. In their Pauline usages, however, being justified and receiving righteousness from God pertains to the change in a human being’s judicial status because of Christ’s suffering and death, and has nothing to do with upholding the moral order.57 In addition, the penal-substitutionary version of the Satisfaction theory of the atonement best synthesizes the datum of Christ as the second human being whose act of obedience nullifies the judicial effect of the first human being’s representative act (Rom. 5.12-19). As such, Christ as the second federal head of the human race makes available ‘the gift of righteousness’, which is possible because his suffering and death is accepted by God as the penalty owing for all human sins (Rom. 5.17). The result is that God imputes a status of righteousness to human beings. The other two theories of the atonement cannot adequately explain how the soteriological benefit of the gift of righteousness is resultant upon Christ’s suffering and death. In order to attenuate the tension between Christ as the one who provides satisfaction and God who accepts it, supporters of the penal-substitutionary 56. Or, as J. Rivière expresses it, ‘objective efficacy’ (The Atonement [2 vols; London Kegan Paul et al., 1909], I, p. 28). 57. See Hodge, The Atonement, pp. 212-27.



6.   Testing of Theories of the Atonement 175

version of the Satisfaction theory of the atonement have stressed their unity of purpose.58 As already indicated, Christ’s satisfaction for sin originates in God’s love, so that God and Christ are joint participants in this salvationhistorical undertaking.59 It is a caricature of the biblical view to portray God as needing to be induced or persuaded to be merciful by means of Christ’s satisfaction for sin. As Stott writes, ‘Both God and Christ were subjects not objects, taking the initiative together to save sinners’.60 On the assumption of the consubstantiality of God the Father and God the Son, it could even be said that God makes satisfaction to himself for the sins of human beings: ‘God dying for man’.61 Stott uses the phrase ‘the self-substitution of God’ to refer to the atonement. The New Testament, however, does not explicitly assert this, but instead keeps God and Christ ontologically separate, understanding their unity as economical. The danger of moving from unity of purpose to unity of being is adopting a version of modalism or Sabellianism, whereby the Father suffers (patripassianism), which view Tertullian opposed (Adv. Prax.). If the penal-substitutionary version of the satisfaction theory of the atonement represents a true insight into the biblical data, then those data that are susceptible to different interpretations, in particular those supportive of the Moral Influence theory, should be interpreted in light of it. Again those other biblical data are: Christ’s death is for others; it is redemptive and the means by which human beings are reconciled to God; forgiveness is causally tied to Christ and his death; Christ appeared in history in order to take away sins; Christ is i9lasmo&j for sins; and Christ’s death is typologically prefigured by the bronze snake that Moses lifted up in the wilderness. The reason that these assertions are true is because Christ’s death is a penalsubstitutionary satisfaction for sins. 2. Objections to Penal-Substitutionary Version of Satisfaction Theory There are several objections to the penal-substitutionary theory version of the Satisfaction theory of the atonement adduced by its detractors.62 First, 58. Brunner, The Mediator, pp. 479-86; Stott, Cross of Christ, pp. 133-63. 59. Contrary to the misinterpretation that God killed Christ (see J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 2011]). 60. Stott, Cross of Christ, p. 151. 61. Forsyth, The Work of Christ, p. 25. Forsyth further states, ‘But the real meaning of an objective atonement is that God Himself made the complete sacrifice. The real objectivity of the atonement is not that it was made to God, but by God… The real objective element in the atonement, therefore, is that God made it and gave it finished to man, not that it was made to God by man’ (pp. 92-93). 62. See J. Goldingay (ed.), Atonement Today (London: SPCK, 1995); Hodge, The Atonement, pp. 301-14.

176

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

the theory is sometimes rejected because it is assumed that in a judicial context one person cannot be a substitute for another, which thereby eliminates the possibility of Christ’s penal suffering and death.63 As in the Moral Influence and Governmental theories, it is taken as axiomatic that to punish a person for another’s sin is not only morally offensive but in fact impossible.64 To do so is said to go contrary to the nature of sin, which is personal, ‘an act of the soul’, and not transferable, and to the nature of justice, which requires strict retribution. Young writes, ‘The idea of putting the sins of a being who is guilty on or in another being who is innocent, of making the innocent chargeable with them and putting them in his account, would be gross injustice if it were possible; but it is not possible, the thing is a pure, sheer absurdity’.65 The notion that Christ could be punished in the place of sinners is considered absurd and even obscene. Bushnell further explains, ‘Neither, as God is a just being, can He [Christ] be anyhow punishable in our place—all God’s moral sentiments would be revolted by that. And if Christ should Himself consent to such punishment, He would only ask to have all the most immovable convictions, both of God’s moral nature and of our own, confounded or eternally put by’.66 As already indicated, however, such an objection contradicts those biblical data that assert in different ways that Christ’s suffering is penal-substitutionary in nature, and therefore a satisfaction for sins. For this reason, it is not a valid objection to the penalsubstitutionary version of the Satisfaction theory, but is in actuality a rejection of the authority of scripture. Second, opponents of the penal-substitutionary version of the Satisfaction theory of the atonement point out that on this theory there can only be satisfaction for sins already committed, before a person believes in Christ and is baptized; this leaves no provision for the satisfaction of any future sin, which is obviously problematic.67 In other words, satisfaction can only be retrospective, not prospective. In response to this criticism, Reformed theologians have asserted that the satisfaction of Christ is applicable to all sins, past and future, which is implied by the biblical datum of Christ’s 63. See Wardlaw, On the Extent and Nature of the Atonement of Christ, pp. 54-60; Young, The Light and Life of Men, pp. 283-313. 64. Wardlaw claims that is being called in this work the satisfaction theory does away with grace because God has no choice but to remit sins if Christ’s death is penal and substitutionary: ‘There can be no grace in bestowing what it would be an act of injustice to withhold’ (On the Extent and Nature of the Atonement of Christ, pp. 67-69 [54]). This is really an unfair criticism since, according to this theory, grace precedes the penal and substitutionary death of Christ as its efficient or moving cause. 65. Young, The Light and Life of Men, p. 304. 66. Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 6. 67. One might even argue to absurdity there could only be satisfaction for sins committed before Christ’s death but not after that point in history.



6.   Testing of Theories of the Atonement 177

unique and unrepeatable death found in Heb 10.12 ‘offered one sacrifice for sins for all time’ and 1 Pet. 3.18 ‘Christ also suffered for sins once for all’. Owen writes, ‘All our sins, past, present, and to come, were at once imputed unto and laid upon Jesus Christ’.68 In an effort to clarify what he considers to be the biblical position, Turretin makes a distinction between two types of forgiveness. He claims that, although they are not forgiven formally and explicitly (formaliter et explicite), future sins are forgiven eminently and virtually (eminenter et virtualiter),69 this being made certain by the righteousness of Christ.70 Likewise he explains that in the covenant of grace there is a general forgiveness as to status and special forgiveness as to particular sinful acts.71 The former is a function of justification, with the result that for any future sin forgiveness is guaranteed. This means that God’s anger toward sin is always only paternal and remedial for those in the covenant of grace.72 In this way, there is no danger posed by future sins, since eternal life is not conditional on works, not even in part. Roman Catholic theologians claim to have a superior position to the Protestant one because they avoid the problem of having post-baptismal sins for which satisfaction is required. This is because in their understanding of justification past sins are removed by declaration and future sins are prevented by renovation.73 68. John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith though the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ; Explained, Confirmed, and Vindicated in The Works of John Owen, vol. 5 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1862), p. 143. 69. Institutio Theologiae Elencticae II, loc. decimus sextus, 5.18. 70. Quia in Justita Christi nobis imputata fundamentum est istius remissionis. 71. Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae II, loc. decimus sextus, 5.20. 72. Reformed theology posits the existence of two covenants, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. This distinction serves as an organizing principle of the biblical data. As used in this context, a covenant is a dispensation or set of conditions according to which God relates to human beings; these two covenants are historically simultaneous although the covenant of grace ‘was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel’ (Westminster Confession, VII.5). In the covenant of works, life is promised to Adam and his descendants on the condition of perfect obedience to the Law (Westminster Confession, VII.2. ‘The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience’). Obtaining life in this way has proven to be impossible because of original sin, to which Adam’s progeny add their own personal sins. In the covenant of grace, eternal life is promised to those who have faith in Christ; this is possible because of Christ’s penal and substitutionary suffering and death (Westminster Confession, VII.3 ‘Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe’). 73. See John Henry Newman, Lectures on Justification (Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1838), p. 90.

178

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church does provide for the possibility of forgiveness of post-baptismal sins by means of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation, even for mortal sins. In conclusion, however it is expressed, the satisfaction for sins made possible by Christ’s suffering and death should be understood as including all sins, past and future. The theological impulse informing both the Protestant and Roman Catholics positions is correct: Christ’s penal-substitutionary satisfaction for sin should be conceived as atemporal. A third criticism of the penal-substitutionary version of the Satisfaction theory of the atonement is that the satisfaction effected by Christ on such a theory can only be unconditional, contrary to the biblical position that its conditions are repentance, faith and even perseverance in good works. If there were no conditionality, there would be no need to exhort people to believe and to persevere in faith and obedience, as is found throughout scripture. Miley claims that there are two possible theories of the atonement: absolute substitution, which he rejects, and conditional substitution, which, in his view, is the biblical position.74 His claim is that, if Christ’s suffering death is truly penal-substitutionary, then satisfaction has been made unconditionally either for all human beings or at least just for the elect, neither of which is theologically acceptable. The conclusion reached by this reductio ad absurdum argument is that the penal-substitutionary theory cannot be true. In response, it could be argued that, since both are clearly present in scripture, the alleged mutually exclusivity and logical incompatibility of satisfaction and conditionality should simply be rejected. One could express this by saying that, whereas Christ’s death is the proper cause of the satisfaction for sins, repentance and faith are its instrumental causes; both types of causes are required for the effect to be realized. One could even add that perseverance in good works is a continuing instrumental cause of being a beneficiary of the satisfaction of Christ, which would appeal to a Roman Catholic theologian. Or one could adopt the distinction between impetration and application. The former describes the general and indefinite possibility of satisfaction, whereas the latter describes the personal and definite appropriation of that possibility. This obviates the need to have recourse to the doctrine of limited or definite atonement as a means of avoiding logically contradictory consequences of an unwanted and unused atonement. 74. Miley writes, ‘There is place for a theory of Absolute Substitution, according to which the redemptive sufferings of Christ were strictly penal, and the fulfillment of an absolute obligation of justice in the punishment of sin. This is the theory of Satisfaction, and answers to the necessity in the first sense given. There is also place for a theory of Conditional Substitution, according to which the redemptive sufferings of Christ were not the punishment of sin, but such a substitute for the rectoral office of penalty as renders forgiveness, on proper conditions, consistent with the requirements of moral government’ (The Atonement in Christ, p. 101; see p. 119).



6.   Testing of Theories of the Atonement 179

Finally, it is sometimes objected that the Satisfaction theory of the atonement and the penal-substitutionary version of it in particular cannot give a credible explanation for how Christ’s suffering and death is commensurate with the sins of all human beings, so that it can function as a satisfaction for them.75 Christ’s suffering is obviously not identical in kind and degree as well as duration to what all sinners would endure without satisfaction for their sins. Christ was crucified and did not suffer in hell. Moreover, Christ remained dead for only three days and did not therefore experience an eternal punishment. For this reason, it is argued that the suffering and death of Christ cannot be considered the equivalent of the penalty owing to sinful human beings. The usual explanation offered is that, because of his dignity as the God-man, Christ’s satisfaction is infinite in nature.76 In other words, by virtue of his divine nature, the merit of Christ’s suffering is said to be infinitely more than commensurate with any finite amount of sin.77 Aquinas explains that Christ’s suffering and death is more than able to serve as a satisfaction for three reasons, one of which is the dignity of his life.78 By dignity Aquinas is referring to the infinite value of Christ’s divine nature.79 75. See Miley, The Atonement in Christ, pp. 135-43. 76. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo. See John as Damascus, O.F. 3.15: ‘We must, then, maintain that Christ has two energies in virtue of His double nature. For things that have diverse natures, have also different energies, and things that have diverse energies, have also different natures. And so conversely, things that have the same nature have also the same energy, and things that have one and the same energy have also one and the same essence’. 77. See Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2, p. 483: ‘His righteousness…is infinitely meritorious’. 78. The other two are the great love for which he suffered (1) the extent of his suffering (3). 79. John Owen presents another, more obscure version of it. He claims that the penalty of sin is eternal death and that Christ vicariously assumes this penalty on behalf of human beings. Even though it differs in what Owen calls its ‘attendancies’, by which he means its accidental qualities, in particular its duration, Christ’s death is identical to eternal death in its essence or in potentia, as Owen expresses it, because of ‘the dignity of his person’, by which is meant his divine nature. So even though Christ did not die eternally but only remained in the grave for three days, because of his divine nature, his death is ‘oequipotent’ to an eternal death. For this reason, Owen concludes, ‘There is a sameness in Christ’s suffering with that in the obligation in respect of essence, and equivalency in respect of attendancies’ (‘On the Death of Christ’ in The Works of John Owen, vol. 10 [London and Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1852], pp. 430-79 [448]). About the same time, Turretin makes use of the same type of argument. He claims that, even though Christ did not die eternally but only remained dead for three days, Christ still pays an infinite penalty for human sin because of his divine nature. He writes, ‘Quia si non fuit infinita quoad durationem, fuit tamen talis aequivalenter quoad valorem, propter personae patientis infinitam dignitatem quia non fuit passio meri hominis, sed veri Dei’. He adds for emphasis, ‘Perperam tamen quis inde colliget, siquidem Persona patiens fuit

180

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

He explains in his reply to objection three: ‘The dignity of Christ’s flesh is not to be estimated solely from the nature of flesh, but also from the person assuming it—namely, inasmuch as it was God’s flesh, the result of which was that it was of infinite worth’ (ST 3.48.2). For this reason, Aquinas can refer to Christ’s satisfaction as superabundant (superabundans satisfactio) as a way to express how exceedingly effective his suffering and death is for the satisfaction of the sins of the human race.80 To have recourse to the concept of infinity, however, is an extreme measure; it is to enter into the realm of theological speculation and maybe even meaninglessness. There is nothing in the biblical data that would support such an explanation. Rather than insisting on the infinite worth of Christ’s suffering, the better explanation for why Christ’s suffering is commensurate with the sins of all human beings is some version of the Scotian and Remonstrant position that in his mercy God wills to accept Christ’s suffering and death as a substitute for the penalty owing to human beings, or, in other words, that it becomes sufficient for the satisfaction of every sin of every human being by God’s sovereign decree.81 This view is commonly known as acceptance (acceptilatio). To say anything more than this is to go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4.6), and seek to penetrate into a divine mystery.82 What is implied by this is that Christ’s death was not absolutely necessary for the satisfaction of sins, but only necessary after the fact, as a consequence of God’s will (necessitas consequentiae): God is not subject to any necessity other than his own will (Duns Scotus, Sent. 3.19-20). This is not to say that God makes an arbitrary decision, because whatever God wills becomes the truth; in other words, God is not subject to a standard by which his choices can be judged to be arbitrary or not. It further follows that any discussion about whether Christ’s suffering and death is necessary for atonement or whether there could be other means of atonement must be abandoned as needlessly speculative.

infinita, unicam sanguinis Christi guttam potuisse sufficere ad redemptionem nostrum, quia licet quaelibet passio habeat valorem infinitum subjective ratione patientis, sola tamen mors habuit valorem infinitum objective respectu Judicis infligentis’ (Institutio Theologiae Elencticae II, loc. decimus quartus, 11.28). Finally Hodge explains that the perfection of Christ’s satisfaction is due ‘principally to the infinite dignity of his person’ (Systematic Theology, 2, p. 483). 80. Ille proprie satisfacit pro offensa qui exhibet offenso id quod aeque vel magis diligit quam oderit offensam. Christus autem, ex caritate et obedientia patiendo, maius aliquid Deo exhibuit quam exigeret recompensatio totius offensae humani generis. 81. Philip von Limborch, Theologia christiana, iii.xxi.vi; iii.xxii.v. Nevertheless, as his second reason Limborch appeals to the concept of the dignity of Christ, in addition to the will of God, in order to explain why Christ’s death suffices to expiate human sins (iii.xxii.v). 82. See Rom. 1.25; 1 Cor. 2.1; 2.7; 4.1; Eph. 1.9.



6.   Testing of Theories of the Atonement 181

3. Christus Victor Theory There is a set of biblical data that supports the fourth theory of the atonement, the Christus Victor theory, sometimes called the Classic theory (see Chapter 5). Although many assume that the four theories of the atonement are mutually exclusive, so that only one of them can be true, the Christus Victor theory of the atonement is also supported by the biblical data. It is clear that another aspect of the soteriological benefit of the suffering and death of Christ is freeing human beings from the dominion of Satan and spirits under his control. Jesus understands his exorcisms as an assault on the kingdom of Satan and his death ironically as resulting in the irreversible defeat of Satan. Using his own distinctive and diverse terminology, Paul likewise understands Christians as freed from the dominion of Satan. John describes the same effect as destroying the works of the devil (1 Jn 3.8). The author of Hebrews explains that Christians are freed from the fear of death because Christ as High Priest has destroyed the one who has the power of death, identified as the devil. Freedom from the dominion of Satan is closely associated with the forgiveness of sins and nullification of death. These form a triad of interrelated soteriological concepts. Sin and bondage to Satan and spirits under his control are causally correlated: sin leads to bondage and bondage leads to sin. In addition, the eventual outcome of sin is death, which is controlled by the one in whom human beings are in bondage because of their sins. The early church fathers justifiably continue this interpretation of the soteriological benefit resulting from Christ’s suffering and death, and a much more recent version of it is found in Gustaf Aulén’s Christus Victor.83 Likewise, the messianic interpretation of Gen. 3.15, according to which Christ is the seed of the woman who metaphorically crushes Satan under his foot, is a legitimate extrapolation of scripture; early Christian theologians simply make explicit what is implicit. What is not explained in the New Testament is how Christ’s death is effective in freeing human beings from the dominion of Satan, which led some early Christian theologians to conjecture that Christ’s death was a ransom that was justly paid to Satan or that Satan forfeited his right to punish human beings because he unjustly killed Christ. Such views are speculative, having little basis in the biblical data. Moreover, as Anselm points out, the idea that the devil has any just claim to human beings that God must recognize and address is too dualistic.84 Nevertheless, the New Testament is dualistic enough to hold that Christ’s death brings about the defeat of Satan and grants freedom to human beings from his dominion. The causal connection link between Christ’s death and freedom from 83. See Stott, Cross of Christ, pp. 227-51. 84. See Cur Deus Homo, 1.6, 7; 2.19.

182

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

the dominion of Satan is the forgiveness of sins, as some early Christian theologians make explicit. With forgiveness resulting from Christ’s death comes freedom from the dominion of Satan and death. Irenaeus’ concept of Christ’s restoration (recapitulatio/a)nakefalai&wsij) is useful in concisely expressing this aspect of the soteriological benefit of Christ’s death, although a more perspicuous word might be used to express the concept. Moreover, some of the more ambiguous biblical data can also be explained in way that is consistent with the Christus Victor theory of the atonement. In particular, Christ’s death for others and as redemptive can be interpreted as true insofar as his suffering and death result in being freed from the dominion of Satan. Contrary to some early theologians, however, the bronze snake that Moses lifted up on a pole should not be interpreted as symbolizing the defeat of the devil. The penal-substitutionary version of the Satisfaction theory of the atonement and the Christus Victor theory are complementary and not mutually exclusive, as is sometimes thought. What connects them is the common element of the forgiveness of sin. The forgiveness that Christ makes possible by the penal and substitutionary satisfaction of his death also results in becoming free from the dominion of Satan, who maintains his dominion because of human sins. These two theories should really be considered as two parts of a more inclusive theory, which may be called the Satisfaction and Spiritual Freedom theory of the atonement, or some such designation.

Indexes Selective Index of References Old Testament Genesis 3.15

137, 147, 181 15.6 75 Exodus 24.1-8 32 24.3 22, 32 32, 51 24.8 25.17 57 29.21 51 29.36-37 27 30.10 27 32.10-14 165 Leviticus 8.15 29 8.19 29 8.24 29 8.30 29 12.4 27 14.6-7 52 16 22 16.14-16 57 16.19 27 16.30 27 Numbers 15.22-26 50 21.6-9 129 Deuteronomy 17.18-20 3 21.22-23 116 24.16 11

1 Samuel 8.7 2 8.22 2 10.25 2 12.14 2 12.23 2 16.1-3 7 2 Samuel 7.14 2 2 Kings 14.6 11 2 Chronicles 25.4 11 29.24 50 Psalms 2.2 2 22, 25 2.7 32.1-2 75 16.9-11 4 16.10 5 16.10a 4 4, 6 16.10b 40.6-8 22, 30, 31 40.6-9 30 110 19 22, 24, 25, 110.1 28 110.4 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28 118 6 118.22 7 118.22-23 6, 7, 8

Proverbs 14.9 27 Isaiah 52.13–53.12

9, 15, 16, 17, 18 52.13 12, 15 52.14 10 52.15 12 53.1–53.12 20 53.2b-3 10 53.4 18 53.4b 10 17, 18 53.5 53.6 9 53.6b 10 9, 17 53.8 53.8a 10 53.9a 10 53.9b 18 11, 16, 173 53.10 53.10a 10 53.10b 12 53.11 11, 15, 16, 18 53.11a 12 53.11b-12 11 53.11b 174 11, 12, 13, 53.12 16, 17, 18 10, 12, 21 53.12b Jeremiah 22, 66 31.31-34 31.34 31 Daniel 9 19

184

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death New Testament

Matthew 12.27-28 139 21.42-44 6 23.34-36 3 26.37-39 26 Mark 10.35-45 14 10.42-44 14 10.44 14 10.45 14, 15, 16 10.45a 15 10.45b 15, 16 12.10-11 6 14.33-36 26 Luke 10.18 138 11.19-20 139 11.45-51 3 20.17-18 6 22.37 12, 13 22.42-44 26 24.27 4 24.46-47 103 John 1.29 21, 50 3.14-15 129 10.15 98 12.24 98 12.31 139 15.13 98 16.11 140 19.33 64 19.36 64 Acts 2 5 2.22-23 4 2.29 5 2.27 6 2.30 5 2.38 102 4.11 6 5.31 102 8.26-39 17 8.35 17

10.38 139 10.43 103 13.16-41 4 13.32-37 6 13.38-39 103 17.30 31 20.28 135 26.18 140, 143 Romans 1.16 78 1.17 78 1.18 79, 80, 161 1.23 161 3.20 79 3.21 80 3.21-23 79 3.24 106 3.24-26 80 3.24a 74 3.25 31, 57, 80, 171 4.6-8 75 5.1 75 5.6 99 5.7 99 5.8 99 5.10 113 5.12-19 38, 174 39, 40 5.12 5.13-17 39 5.14 40, 41 5.15 41, 42 5.17 42, 145, 174 5.18 42 5.18b-19 39 5.19 40, 41 5.21 42 8.1 125 8.3 126, 161, 166, 172 8.9 99 8.32 99 8.34 99 10.3 80, 81 10.3b 81 10.4 81

1 Corinthians 1.30 106, 107 5.7-8 140 5.7b 64 6.3 145 6.20 134 7.23 134 15.3-4 4 15.3 16 15.24-25 145 15.25-26 145 15.24-28 143 2 Corinthians 4.4 142 5.14-15 21 5.19 114, 166 5.21 19, 83, 127, 161, 166, 173, 174 Galatians 1.4 145 2.16a 73 2.16b 74 2.20 99 3.13 106, 117, 159, 161 Ephesians 1.6 1 13 1.7 106 2.1-2a 141 2.1-6 140 2.2. 142 2.2b 141 2.3 142 2.5 142 4.32 103 5.2 52 5.25 99 Philippians 3.9 82 Colossians 1.13 143

1.14 106, 143 1.19 114 1.20a 114 1.20b 114 1.21-22 115 1.22 114 2.13b 166 2.13b-14 131, 161, 173 2.14 145 144, 145 2.15 2.18-19 144 1 Timothy 2.5 135 2.6 135 Titus 2.13-14 106 Hebrews 1.1-3 31 1.2 22 1.5 25 1.13 22 1.14 25 2.9 26 27, 33 2.10 2.10-18 146 2.17 24 3–4 32 4.4 28 5.4 25 5.5-6 25 5.7-10 26 5.7 26 5.8 26 27, 32 5.9

Selective Index of References 185 5.10 27 7.11 23 7.15 23 7.18 31 7.22 31 8.6-13 31 8.7 31 8.6b 31 8.13 31 8.16a 29 9.8 28 9.11-12 28 28, 29, 107 9.12 9.12b 28 9.13-14 28 9.13 28 9.14 24 9.15 32, 107 9.15a 31 9.16-17 32 9.18 32 9.18-20 32 9.19 28 9.20 29 9.21-28 29 9.21 29 9.22 161 9.22a 29 9.22b 29 28, 29 9.24 9.25 30 9.26a 30 9.27-28 17 10.1 24 10.1a 23 10.1b-2 24 10.1b 23 10.3 24

10.4 24, 28 10.5-10 30 10.8a 31 10.11-14 24 10.12 24, 177 12.24 33 1 Peter 1.2 51 1.18-19 64, 107 2.4 6 2.7 6 2.21 18 2.23 18 2.24 18 18, 100, 3.18 161, 166, 172, 177 2 Peter 1.9 103 2.1 135 1 John 1.7 103 123, 159 2.2 3.8 146, 181 4.8 165 4.9-10 159 4.10 123 Revelation 1.5 108 5.6-12 51 5.9 135 12.9 137 20.2 137

Early Church Fathers 1 Clement 7.4 108 12.7 108 16 20 32.4 77 36.1 33 2 Clement 20 33

Ambrose De fide 3.2.13-24 134 3.11.86-88 36 3.11.87 37 De Inc. Dom. Sacr. 6.56 111 6.67-68 111

De offic. I.48.248 36 De Patr. 4 133 Ennar. in ps. 37.6 129

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

186 Ennar. in ps. (cont.) 39.2 104 39.14 71 Ep. 53.47 21 53.48 21 53.49 21 63.49 37 Exp. ps. 118 18.42 128 De Spir. 1.3 56 Fug. 7.44 121 Jac. lib. 2, cap. 2.8 56 Luc. 10.8 56 Athanasius Ar. 1.43 110 1.51 44, 45 1.59 34, 44 110, 126 1.60 2.7 34 2.9 35 2.13 111 2.14 111 2.47 119 2.52 110 119, 126, 2.55 149 2.59-60 44 2.65 44 2.75 110 3.31 19 3.33 44 5.8 35 Decr. 3 [14] 2 [5])

45 124

Incarn. 4.3 44 4.10 44 4.25 149 5 19 6.34 19 9.1 136 9.2 136 10.4 45 10.5 45 20.2 135 20.5 135 21.7 136 25 119 25.3 136 25.4 136 26 100 37 119 40.2 136 Augustine C. ep. pel. 3.2 86 3.16 129 4.10 86 Civ. Dei 37, 38 10.20 13.14 47 16.22 37 C. Faust. 14.6 122 De Trin. 4.13

134, 153, 155 4.14 37 13.14-15 153 13.14 155 13.15 155 Doct. chr. 4.21.45 37 En. ps. 33 s. I.5-6 37 39.12 56 129.3 57

Enchir. 41 57, 129 49 154 50 47 Gr. et lib. arb. 18 86 Gr. et pecc. or. 1.14 86 2.33 37 Io. ep. tr. 1.7 125 7.9 125 Io. ev. tr. 12.11 131 55 71 55.1 150 Nat. et gr. 1 85 Pecc. mer. 1.61 131 Qu. hept. 3.57 56 Spir. et litt. 15 86 18 86 28 71 31 86 Basil Epist. 261.2 136 Hom. Ps. 28.5 55 48.3 152 48.4 152 48.34 55 61.3 136 Reg. fus. 4 21

Chrysostom In ep. ad 1 Cor. Hom 38.3 21 In ep. ad 1 Tim. Hom. 7.3 136 In ep. ad 2 Cor. Hom. 11 116 In ep. ad Col. Hom. 6.3 133 In ep. ad Eph. Hom. 5.3 136 In ep. ad Heb. Hom. 5.1 37, 150 17.2 37 17.3 37 In ep. ad Phil. Hom. 11 87 In ep. ad Rom. Hom. 2 87 7 62, 87 10 46 10.2 136 17 87 In Ioan. Hom. 17.2 56 27 130 67.12 153 Clement of Alexandria Dives 8 100 23 135 Paedag. 1.6 112 2.8 148 3.12 124 Protr. 9 148 10 116

Selective Index of References 187 Strom. 7.3 53 Cyprian Ad Fortun. 5 100 25 115 De bono pat. 6 20 De Dom. or. 30 113 De op. et eleem. 2 113 Demetr. 5.25 112 Ep. 20, 100 58.6 62.4 33 Cyril of Alexandria Comm. in evang. Ioan. 3.14-15 130 De adorat. in sp. et ver. 3 128 De inc. Domini 27 128 Glaphr. in Pent. [Exodus] 2 70 Cyril of Jerusalem Cat. lect. 4.9-10 20 4.11 112 4.13 112 10.3 20 13.2 46, 112 13.3 20, 70 13.4 111 13.20 131 13.32 36 13.33 120

13.34 20 14.19 112 20.1 151 Gregory Nazianzus Or. 1.7 55 4.68 55 5.13 70 6.4 55 30.5 120, 128 37.1 128 30.5 120 45 150 45.13 70 Gregory of Nyssa Con. Eunom. 2.1.422 120 3.4.19 36 3.4.46 127 3.9.9 120 3.10.12 120 Or. cat. 22 152 23 152 24 152 26 152 Perf. 8.1.185 136 8.1.187 62 Hilary Comm. Matt. 8.58 47 De Trin. 1.13 104 9.7 149 9.10 133 10.23 21 10.47 21 Tr. ps. 53 121 53.12 21, 121 53.13 121 129.9 133

188

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Tr. ps. (cont.) 135.15 150 149.3 116

John of Damascus O.F. 3.25 122

Ignatius IgnEph 1.1 100

Justin Martyr 1 Apol. 32 104 41 122

IgnPol 3.2 99 IgnRom 6.1 99 IgnSmyr 2.1 100, 104 6.1 104 7.1 104 IgnTrall 2.1 99 Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 1.5.3 53 3.18.7 109 3.21.10 43 3.22.4 44 3.23.1 149 3.23.7 147 4.10.1 69 4.10.2 118 4.20.2 109 4.40.3 147 5.1.1 151 5.14.3 109, 115 5.16.3 44 5.17.1 62 5.17.3 43, 133 5.20.2 20 5.21.1 147 5.21.1-2 148 5.21.3 152 Demonstr. 25 69 37 108 88 108, 109

2 Apol. 13 100

Oecumenius Pauli Epist. ad Rom. cap. I 84 cap. XVI 84 Origen Comm. Jn. 1.37 54 10.13 70 28.14 127 29 19

Dial. 13 19, 53 30 148 32 19 40 69 45 148 62 19 73 122 89 19 95-96 119 95 120 96 120 111 69

Comm. Matt. 12.29 100 11.8 120

Lactantius D.I. 4.14 33

Con. Cels. 1.31 149 1.54 19 2.59 19 4.19 100 4.28 125 6.30 35 8.13 35

Letter of Barnabas 5.1 20, 53 5.2 20 7.2 53 7.3 53 12.5 130 Letter of Diognetus 9.2 135 MartPol. 14.3 33 17.2 100, 104 Melito of Sardis Pasch. 69, 149 67 94 101 103 69

Comm. Rom. 1.15 84 2.13 152 3.7 85 59, 62 3.8 3.9 77 3.24 111 5.2 45 6.12 126 7.2 85

Hom. in Lev. 1.3 35 9.2 35 9.9 35 9.10 36 Hom. in Num. 10.2 36 24 54 Polycarp Pol. Phil. 1.2 101 8 118 9.2 100



Selective Index of References 189

Rufinus Comm. in Symb. Ap. 19 105

Theodoret In Isaiam 53.4-12 21

Shepherd of Hermas Sim. 5.6.2. 103

Interp. ps. 21.2 122

Tertullian Adv. Iud. 20, 70, 122 10 10.1-3 119 10.10 131 10.11 123 13 20, 53 6, 20 14

Int. epist. ad Rom. c. III [3.24] 77

Adv. Marc. 5.7 70 5.9 34 5.19 116 De fuga 12 119 De test. 3.2 43

Quaest. in Num. 9 21 Medieval Theologians Anselm Cur Deus homo 1.1 167 1.11 167 1.12 167 1.13 167 1.14 167 1.21-23 167 1.24 167 2.5 167 2.6 167 2.10 167

2.11 167 2.14 167 2.18 167 2.19 168 2.19-20 168 Bonaventure Comm. sent. 3.20 169 Duns Scotus Sent. 3.19-20

168, 180

Leo the Great Serm. 22.4 154 Thomas Aquinas ST 3.46-49 169 3.48.2 169, 180 3.48.3 170 3.48.4 170 3.49.4 160

Index of Modern Authors Achtemeier, Paul  18, 64 Adamson,William  156, 157 Aletti, Jean-Noël  78 Allison, Dale C.  139 Ames, William  49, 95 Anderson, A.A.  5 Anderson, David R.  22, 27 Anselm   153, 155, 166-69, 179, 181 Arens, Eduardo  14, 15 Attridge, Harold W.  107 Aulén, Gustaf   137, 181 Baillie, D.M.   159 Bandstra, Andrew J.  82, 132 Barrett, C.K.   16, 63, 75, 79, 81, 130, 139 Barth, Karl   170 Baumgarten, J.M.  116 Bayer, Hans F.   6 Beare, F.W.   64 Becker, Jürgen   138 Bellarmine, Robert  48, 49, 76, 90, 93, 94, 95 Betz, Hans Dieter  73, 145 Black, Matthew  130 Bock, Darrell L.   6 Bonsirven, Joseph  66 Boyd, Gregory   137 Brandenburger, Egon  41 Bruce, F.F.   17, 29, 39, 58, 73, 102 Brunner, Emil   160, 165, 175 Brunson, Andrew  7 Bucer, M.   38, 96 Buchanan, G.W.  22 Buchanan, James  88, 90, 92 Bull, George   90 Bultmann, Rudolf  78, 123 Burton, Ernest DeWitt  73, 145 Bushnell, Horace   159, 176 Calvin, John   38, 49, 76, 89, 170, 172 Campbell, John McLeod  159, 170, 171 Carr, W.   132

Carson, D.A.   63 Casey, Maurice  15 Cave, Alfred   51, 156, 157, 162, 168 Cerfaux, Lucien  146 Chapman, David W.  117 Chemnitz, M.   91 Childs, Brevard  10 Chisholm, Robert B.   11 Cody, Aelred   30 Cohick, Lynn H.  101 Contrarini, Gasparo  92 Conzelmann, H.  17, 102, 103 Couroyer, B.   139 Cox, John Edmund  92, 93, 172 Craigie, Peter C.   5 Cranfield, C.E.B.  15, 39, 40, 42, 57, 59, 60, 74, 78, 81, 82 Crawford, Thomas J.  72, 156, 157, 159 Crisp, Oliver D.  171 Cullmann, Oscar  127 Dahood, Mitchell   5 Dale, Robert W.  100, 157, 160, 167 Dalman, Gustaf  68 Damalie, Evelyn   11 Davenant, John  91, 93, 94, 96 Davids, Peter H.  64 Davies, Glenn N.  79 Davies, W.D.   139 Deissmann, A.   59 Delcor, M.   23 Denney, James  22, 27, 168, 171 Derrett, J.D.M.   7 Dibelius, Martin  16 Dillistone, F.W.  157 Dobbeler, A. von  58 Dodd, C.H.   16, 47 Donaldson, T.   117 Downame, George  49, 92, 93, 96 Driver, S.R.    5 Dülmen, Andrea van  82 Dunn, James D.G.  39, 60, 80, 114



Index of Modern Authors 191

Dunnill, John   32 Dörholt, Bernhard  8, 157 Eckstein, Hans-Joachim  73, 117 Elgvin, Torleif   117 Ellingworth, Paul  107 Eskola, Timo   39, 41, 80 Fee, Gordon D.   17 Feneberg, Rupert  68 Feuillet, A.   15 Fiddes, Paul   51, 137, 158, 173 Fitzmyer, Joseph A.  12, 23, 117 Forbes, William  89, 94, 95 Forsyth, Peter T.  114, 161, 175 France, R.T.   7, 13, 15 Franks, Robert S.  157 Friedrich, G.   61 Füglister, Notker  67, 68 Fuller, R.   127 Gäbel, Georg   28, 32 Gerhard, Johann  49, 72, 90, 94, 96 Gioia, Luigi   134, 153 Gnilka, Joachim  66 Goldingay, John  11, 175 Goppelt, Leonhard   18, 64 Gregg, Robert C.  34 Grensted, L.W.  167 Grimm, Werner  15 Groh, Dennis E.  34 Grotius, Hugo   124, 161-63, 165 Grudem, Wayne  52 Gundry, Robert H.  83 Gunkel, Hermann   5 Haenchen, Ernst   5 Hagner, Donald A.   6 Hahn, Ferdinand  12, 15, 17 Hall, Stuart G.   101 Hampel, Volker  14, 16 Harnack, Adolf  167 Hawthorne, Gerald F.  83 Hay, D.   22 Headlam, Arthur C.  49, 74 Hengel, Martin  58, 61, 99, 117 Hering, Jean   28 Higgins, A.J.B.  68 Hill, D.   59 Hodge, A.A.   164, 166, 174, 175

Hodge, Charles  39-42, 49, 51, 92, 164, 168, 179, 180 Hoehner, H.   52, 141 Hofius, Otfried  28 Hong, In-Gyu   117 Hooker, Morna   9, 13, 15, 17 Hooker, Richard  96 Hugenberger, G.P.  9 Hultgren, A. J.   39, 57, 58, 77, 80 Hummel, R.   139 Hurst, L.D.   29 Irving, Edward  157, 158 Isaacs, Marie   22 Jeremias, Joachim  7, 12, 15, 16, 57, 66, 68, 75, 139 Jobes, Karen   100 Johnson, Luke T.  79 Jonge , M. de  23 Käsemann, E.  61 Kaiser, Walter C.   6 Kertelge, Karl   61 Kim, Seyoon   78 Klumbies, Paul-Gerhard  58 Kobelski, P.   22 Kraus, Hans Joachim  5 Kümmel, Werner G.  61, 138 Küng, Hans   72, 73 Kurianal, J.   22, 25, 26 Lane, William L.  8, 107 Lang, F.   58 le Déaut, Roger  67 Lessing, R. Reed  11 Letham, Robert  170 Lightfoot, J.B.   133 Limbeck, M.   138 Limborch, Philip von  180 Loader, William R.G.  26, 28, 146 Lohse, Eduard   15, 61, 132, 133 Longenecker, Richard  73 Lührmann, Dieter  139 Lundström, Gösta  139 Luther, Martin   78, 89, 91, 93, 96 Lyonnet, S.   58, 127 Maier, Gerhard  80, 117 Manson, T.W.   13, 139 Marshall, I.H.   12, 65, 102, 138

192

The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Martin, Brice L.  40 Martin, Hugh   22 Martin, R.P.   127, 132 Martineau, James  160 Matera, F.J.   7 Maurice, Frederick D.   160 McKnight, Scot  15, 139 Médebielle, A.   15 Melanchthon, Philip  92 Merklein, Helmut  138, 139 Meyer, Ben F.   15, 58 Meyer, Heinrich A.W.  102 Michaels, J. Ramsey  101 Michel, Otto   79, 81 Miley, John   162, 178, 179 Moberly, R.C.   171 Moessner, David P.  5 Moo, Douglas J.  39, 41, 58, 79, 81-83, 114 Morris, Leon   18, 59-61, 63, 73, 165 Mozley, J.K.   157 Müller, Christian  80 Müller, U.B.   138 Murdock, James  163 Murray, John   39, 59, 94, 140 Mußner, Franz   73, 117, 118 Newman, John Henry  94, 177 Nolland, John   7 North, C.R.   10 Nygren, Anders  58, 78, 79, 82 O’Brien, P.T.   52, 83, 132, 141, 144 Orlinsky, H.M.  11 Osiander, A.   38 Osten-Sacken, Peter von der  39, 138 Oswalt, John   11 Otto, Rudolf   138 Owen, John   89, 92, 177, 179 Oxenham, Henry N.  157, 167, 169 Patsch, Hermann  13, 14, 17, 65 Payne, David F.   11 Pemble, William  72, 92 Perrin, Norman  139 Pesch, Rudolf   14, 65 Peterson, David G.  26 Petter, Thomas D.   11 Pighius, A.   93 Piscator, Johannes  94

Pluta, A.   57, 58, 79 Poehle, Joseph   95 Porkorny, P.   133 Pusey, E.B.   72 Räisänen, H.   117 Rapa, Robert K.  80 Rashdall, Hastings  157, 158 Reumann, John  77 Ridderbos, Herman N.  39-41, 59, 78, 106 Ritschl, Albrecht  93 Rivière, J.   57, 157, 167, 174 Roo, J.C.R. de   75 Sabourin, L.   58, 127 Sanday, William   49, 74 Sanders, E.P.   81 Schlatter, A.   58 Schlier, H.   59, 61, 81, 82 Schlosser, Jacques  139 Schoeps, H.-J.   67, 117 Scholer, John M.  24, 107 Schreiner, Thomas  79, 83, 170 Schröger, Friedrich  23, 26, 30 Schürmann, Heinz  12, 65 Schulz, Siegfried  139 Schweizer, Eduard  65 Scroggs, Robin  39 Seifrid, Mark A.  78 Shedd, William G.T.  171 Sherlock, William  94 Silva, Moises   83 Smalley, Stephen  123 Smeaton, George   4, 99, 103, 118, 126, 127 Smith, Barry D.  3, 16, 65, 66, 139 Smith, John Pye  51 Stott, John R.W.  61, 165, 168, 175, 181 Strobel, A.   26 Stuhlmacher, Peter  14, 16, 58 Swinburne, Richard  172 Symington, William  94, 160, 165, 166 Taylor, Vincent  7, 13, 14, 172 Theißen, Gerd   23 Thomson, William  94, 151, 167, 169 Trull, Gregory V.   4 Turretin, Francis  38, 72, 90, 91, 96, 167, 177, 179



Index of Modern Authors 193

Urwick, William   10 Vermes, Geza   67, 68 Vollenweider, S.  138 Vorstius, Conradus  94 Wace, Henry   172 Wardlaw, Ralph  156, 160, 176 Watts, John D.W.   10 Watts, Rikk E.   7 Weaver, J. Denny  175 Weiser, Artur    5 Westcott, B.F.   123 White, Vernon   168, 173

Whybray, R.N.  11 Wiles, Maurice  172 Williams, S.K.   61 Windisch, Hans  83, 127 Winter, Michael  157, 158 Wollebius, Johannes  94 Wolter, Michael  76 Woude, A. van der,   23 Young, John   160, 176 Zeller, Dieter   77 Zimmerli, W.   16