Jesus Christ himself explained that he had come
as a servant to give his life in an act of sacrifice for us. Thus resting on
Christ's own self-interpretation, the New Testament concept of atoning
redemption assumes a central role in the doctrine of atonement. In order to
clarify the term atonement, we have to turn to the Old Testament. Behind the
OT conception of redemption there are three basic terms and their cognates.
Although all three denote different aspects of divine redemption they are all
profoundly interrelated.
1) Kipur — Together with its
cognates kipur is applied to express the expiatory form of the
act of redemption in the OT. It speaks of the barrier of sin and guilt which
exists between God and humanity as being done away by the sacrifice and
propitiation made between the two factions. Here, the subject of the
atoning act is always God. Thus even though in the OT it is liturgically
carried out by a high priest, the human act has to be seen as only a witness
to the fact that God himself makes atonement and blots out sin by his own
judicial and merciful act. Both God's judgment of wrong by offering an
equivalent and the act of restoration to holiness before him are involved here
in the understanding of atonement. This is brought out most clearly in the NT
where we see Christ stand in as both Priest and Mediator;
e.g., "Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that
He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to
God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb.
2.17).
2) Pedah — Together with
its cognates pedah is applied to express the aspect of the
mighty acts of God in the OT concept of redemption. Significantly these acts
bring immediate deliverance from oppression of evil and out of God's judgment
upon it. It also carries the notion of offering a life in substitution for
another as the cost of redemption and emphasizes the dramatic nature of the
redeeming act as a sheer intervention on the part of God in human affairs.
When the NT writers speak of Christ in terms of victory over the tyrants--sin,
death, devil, the world--they have in view the pedah aspect of
atoning redemption; e.g., "Since then the children share in flesh and
blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He
might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the
devil;" (Heb 2.14).
3) Go’el — Together with its
cognates go’el is used to express the aspect of someone redeeming
others out of a situation of bondage or forfeited rights. The "redeemer" or go’el, upon whom the emphasis is
placed in this type of redemption, possesses a bloodline kinship to those in
need, and can thus claim the cause for their needs as his own and stand in for
his kinsmen who cannot free or redeem themselves. This ontological concept of
redemption is applied in the OT to God acting on behalf of Israel by virtue of
its special covenant relationship. That covenant was, of course, fulfilled in
Christ in that he stood in as go'el for Israel as Seed of Abraham and
David and, by way of kinship attachment to Eve, the entire human race in
recapitulation (i.e., e.g., the gathering together language of Eph. 1-2; see
also Heb 2.14a -- "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He
Himself likewise also partook of the same").
As mentioned before, these three concepts of
redemption not only overlap each other in the teachings of the OT, but they
also modify each other within the unique relations of God with his people.
Thus they are quite different from secular concepts of redemption. It is
significant that all three concepts are applied in the OT paradigm event of
divine redemption—Israel's redemption from Egypt in the Passover and the
Exodus. In Isaiah these three concepts are also applied to God's servant—the
Holy One of Israel—who offers himself for the transgressions of Israel and
intercedes for them. However, the Israelites did not identify this servant
with the divine go’el because the
idea of God becoming incarnate within the existence of humanity seemed
impossible for them. This identification was left to be made in the NT in
God's incarnate Son. However, in doing so the NT reinterpreted this OT concept
of redemption in terms of what the Son of God had actually become and had
actually done while in the flesh.
