MANY dear followers of our Lord have received a philosophy which centers around the phrase "ransom price." It is not an orderly setting forth of the testimony of Scripture on this subject, but an elaborate theological system which appeals to isolated texts for its support. Not a few earnest teachers in their desire to set forth the philosophy of the ransom exclude the greater truths of justification and reconciliation as well as propitiation, expiation, and redemption, or reduce all these various phases of God's salvation to the theory they espouse. The ransom is only one aspect of God's work, seldom referred to in the Scriptures. We have no desire to formulate another philosophy, but it is our privilege to compare this one with the Word of God. Is it in harmony with the Scriptures? Is it expressed in the pattern of sound words (2 Tim.1:13)? The unsound phrase, "ransom price" has led to untold confusion. Through it two entirely distinct lines of thought have been hopelessly entangled. The associations of the word price has introduced into the ransom all the elements of a commercial transaction. It has led to the idea of an exact equivalent, as though Adam alone were to be bought, rather than all ransomed. Because English has no word or expression for the sum paid for a ransom, the word "price" was used and led the ransom astray into realms of thought in which it has no place. In loose, secular literature there would be no objection to such a term. But it should make us very suspicious when it is necessary to invent a phrase not found in the Scriptures in order to express a thought which is supposed to pervade the sacred text. Let us discard the expression and the idea of "a ransom price" until we have warrant for it in the Word of God. This will appeal only to those who really love God and His Word and wish to know His will. Those who prefer expediency to truth cannot realize the importance of sound words, nor will they heed His injunction to use them. Both ransom and price are used of believers, but they are opposite in their effects. We have been bought with a price, hence are slaves. We have been ransomed, hence are free. "He who is called being free, is a slave of Christ. You are bought with a price. Do not become the slaves of men" (1 Cor.7:22,23). Price, brings before us a commercial transaction. In contrast to this, nothing is ever purchased by ransom. It, as well as redemption and deliverance, are a loosing, not a binding. They are used of that which is emancipated, not enslaved. The word "ransom" [lutron] is scriptural. The phrase "ransom price" is unscriptural. We have not found it anywhere in any translation, nor has it any equivalent in the original. The word "price" [time] is used in the Scriptures, but it is never connected with a ransom. It is used of buying and selling. Ransom never is. We go to the market and pay a price for our provisions. We do not ransom them. But if bandits hold one of our friends for ransom, they take all they think they can get. It is not a question of price. We repeat, a ransom liberates. We do not buy one who is ransomed. But a price is paid for slaves and it brings them into bondage. We are asked to believe that the ransom is a commercial transaction because we are "bought with a price" (1 Cor.6:20). No one would confuse these two things in ordinary affairs. Most of us buy many things. Few of us ransom anything. What we buy is our property. In the days of slavery, the man bought was in bondage. Recently a prominent religious leader was held for an enormous ransom. No one questioned whether the sum demanded was an equivalent, or thought that it would buy the evangelist. The precious blood of Christ is the "price." If anyone thinks that it has no more value than those who are purchased by it, I am sorry. It is possible to pay too much, even in buying, and I am convinced that the blood of Christ had infinitely overpaid the price of those whom it has purchased. But we must insist that this buying, this purchasing, was the very opposite effect of a ransom or redemption. Peter writes of those who "disown the Owner (Depotees, not Kurios, Lord) who buys them" (2 Peter 2:1). They are enslaved by purchase, not liberated by a ransom. FLESH NOT THE RANSOM "PRICE" We are asked to believe that the flesh of Christ was given as a ransom "price." The flesh of Christ was never given for the ransom. The Scriptures say He gave His soul for many (Matt.20:28; Mark 10:45), and is giving Himself as a correspondent ransom for all (1 Tim.2:6). These are the only values given. Why deny the Word of God? Why substitute flesh for soul or for Himself? Surely no one would so pervert the Scriptures unless obliged to do so in the interest of an anti-scriptural philosophy. We are asked to believe that our Lord referred to the ransom when He spoke of giving His flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51). Our Lord's hearers also made the mistake in thinking He referred to His literal flesh, so He corrected that impression, saying, "The spirit is that which is vivifying. The flesh is benefitting nothing" (John 6:63). He is speaking of a present spiritual eating of His flesh on the part of His disciples. If the ransom depends on the eating of His physical flesh, no one is, or ever will be ransomed. Surely we are not to understand that, after He died, as a ransom, His dead corpse was to be eaten by His disciples! This passage has absolutely no connection with His death or the ransom. The use of a few words in it in a sense entirely out of line with the context, in order to make the flesh of Christ the "ransom price" is proof positive that there is no foundation for the theory. Indeed, almost every passage appealed to in support of these teachings is wrested from its context and given a force entirely foreign to its true meaning. Anything can be "found in the Bible" if we use it in this fashion. Furthermore, in many vague statements, we are asked to believe that the blood or the life is the ransom "price." No scripture is given because none can be produced. The various terms used, soul and life and Himself are not distinguished, nor are they considered when the further point, that the ransom "price" cannot be recalled, is in view. The whole system depends on proving that the ransom "price" was His flesh, for which not a single passage of God's Word is evidence. We are asked to believe that the ransom is an exact equivalent. In the Scriptures the ransom is never an equivalent. If we add the word "price" to the word ransom we may be deluded into the idea of the payment of an equal amount. Even this would not be the case in ordinary English. In speaking of the sum demanded for the ransom of a kidnaped child we may use the word "price," but we never think of it as the market value of the child. It is usually far more than the price formerly paid for a slave. We are asked to reason that, since justice demands an absolute equivalent, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, therefore the ransom "price" must be an exact equivalent (Deut.19:21). Such "reasoning" is unworthy of the name. In ordinary affairs we do not reason thus. What would we think of a man who did not know the difference between a judge, dealing with a criminal, and his friend who pays a ransom to save him from bandits? It is far worse to mix law and grace. The law came to condemn. What was the result? If one man takes another's life he forfeits his own. Is this a ransom? Is this the measure of a ransom? It is distressing to see such handling of the Word of Truth. Passages utterly foreign to the subject are wrested from their contexts. Any equivalence anywhere would do to prove that the ransom "price" is an equivalent! As a result the "ransom" is very little better than the law. It is insisted that God is just, and that Justice demands an equivalent. The ransom is never connected with God's justice. That attribute is associated with justification and the law (Rom.3:19-28). It is concerned with propitiation, not ransom. Christ Jesus is God's Propitiatory, by means of which He displays His righteousness in passing over the penalty of sins which occurred before in the forbearance of God, and in the current era. The "price" (if we may be forgiven a most unscriptural term) is the blood of Christ. We are now "justified in His blood" (Rom.5:9), not by a ransom. The blood of Christ is the memorial of the abiding efficacy of His death. In the divine ritual of Israel the blood of the annual sacrifice, sprinkled on the mercy seat, or propitiatory, availed for the ensuing year. But it speaks of more than this, for the blood is not the seat of life but of the soul. "The soul [not life] of the flesh, is in the blood" (Lev.17:11). It recalls the sensation or suffering of death, for life is the result of spirit, and sensation of the soul. The justice of God is satisfied by the memorial of Christ's death pangs, of which His shed blood is the tangible evidence. If the argument that the "price" cannot be recalled had been applied to the blood, it would have had a much better foundation, for it was poured out, and His resurrection body was not flesh and blood, but flesh and bones. And who will place an estimate on the value of the sufferings of Christ? Who will dare to limit the preciousness of His outpoured blood? Justice may indeed demand the loss occasioned by sin, but the sternest righteousness cannot complain when it overpays the "price" with such rich redundance that it not only fends against all future failure, but adds an infinite superabundance of richest grace and glory to those who are beneath its shelter. It does not return us to Adamic innocence, but brings us God's own righteousness, beyond the reach of condemnation, and leads us into fullest harmony with the heart of God. No mere equivalent could do this. The value of Christ's blood is by no means confined to Adam or the human race. By the blood of His cross, the Son will reconcile all to God, whether on earth or in the heavens (Col. 1:20). The whole universe does not exhaust its worth. Instead of being a skimpy equivalent for Adamic sin, and leaving all the rest of creation to its terrible fate, it so overwhelms human offense that its overflow is more than sufficient in value not only to rescue sinning creation from its doom, but to reconcile, all of God's enemies to Himself. To satisfy justice is very far short of God's eonian purpose. To use the commercial figure so often insisted upon, it would be a very poor venture on His part to get back an equivalent. Where would be the profit? All of the effort and agony of the eons would be for naught. For the perfect creature with which He commenced He would have one properly repaired. Payment for damages may be justice, but neither God nor man would be satisfied with such a "ransom." It far underrates His wisdom and it is a most offensive undervaluation of the abiding efficacy of Christ's sufferings, as figured by His blood. His suffering, His death, was not like that of other men. Since He could recall the dead to life, He could have kept Himself alive. At the very last He cried with a loud voice and voluntarily gave up His spirit to God. He had suffered for years at the hands of men, but such afflictions only add to His own reward, and to His value as the Sacrifice. Through all of this He had His Father's smile and fellowship. It is only when He is nailed to the accursed cross that God averts His face and sends His fire from above to consume the great Sin Offering. During the three hours of darkness on Calvary's cross, a "price" was paid of such infinite value to the heart of God that any attempt to estimate its preciousness would only reveal how far it is beyond all human imagination. This Sufferer was the Son of God, not our mere equal Who takes our place and suffers in our room and stead. The Greek preposition used is most expressive. (See Rom.5:6,7,8; 8:32; 14:16; 1 Cor.5:7; 15:3, etc.) It is huper, over. He is above: we are beneath. We are not on His level. He acts for our sakes, on our behalf. He is not doing something that we could do, but what we cannot do. He did not suffer as the innocent in place of the guilty. He was holy and was made sin for us, not as us. He is not a mere substitute, but a mighty Saviour. A man in danger of death by drowning does not want some one to drown in his place, but one who is strong enough to effect his rescue. A sinner who wishes to be saved from sin would not seek some one to whom he may shift the penalty of his sins. That would mean death without hope of resurrection. He needs One Who can cope with His sins and arise in triumph over them. The Scriptures are simplicity itself on this subject. But almost all of us approach them with a theory of the atonement derived from some misleading story or tract, or with a philosophy of the ransom based on human reasoning from fragments of Scripture wrenched from their contexts. Then we find the simplest statement difficult. I can express my "theory" of any aspect of His salvation in the very words of Scripture, such as, "while we are still sinners, Christ died for our sakes." But this does not seem acceptable. What is wanted is a single idea, covering every phase, such as substitute, or equivalent. Very well, here it is. It is not some unscriptural, extrascriptural, philosophic, or theological term. As sinners, He is our SAVIOUR. AS enemies, He is our RECONCILER. These titles are a whole philosophy in themselves. The Saviourhood of Christ has been lost in the miserable theory of substitution. His love and his power have well-nigh vanished as unnecessary elements of His sacrifice. It has been dragged down to the level of the animals offered under the law. His very name, Jesus, cries out. David give us a true picture of His salvation. He saved his people, Israel from the Philistines when he slew Goliath of Gath. He did not meet the giant in the room and stead of the army of Saul. He was not even taking the place of a single champion in the hosts of Israel, for there was no one who was able. He fought in behalf of his people and his God. The epistle to the Romans gives us a complete exposition of the deliverance which is ours in Christ Jesus in this administration of God's grace. As to sins, we are justified. As to enmity, we are reconciled. Justification comes to us through Christ as the Propitiatory (Rom.3:25). This is usually called the mercy seat. It was the lid of the ark, made of one solid piece of gold, with two cherubim, one at each end, facing each other (Exodus 25:17-22). Its function was as follows: "I make appointments with you there, and I speak with you from on the propitiatory, from between the two cherubim which are on the ark..." Recent concordant studies in the Hebrew vocabulary have yielded fresh light on the meaning of the word kaphar, usually translated atone, or atonement. Our word cover is so near it, both in sense and sound, that it may be derived from it. This seems to be its force in almost all of its occurrences. But another word, kasah, which occurs over a hundred fifty times, is almost always translated cover, and, undoubtedly, is the closest equivalent of cover in Hebrew. Consequently, though kaphar seems to have the general sense of cover, it must have some elements in it which distinguishes it from kasah. A careful reconsideration shows that it signifies SHELTER, for it is always used of a protective cover. The meaning of the word atonement in the "Old Testament" is SHELTER. It is used of Noah's ark, which was pitched with pitch, or sheltered from the water by a protective covering (Gen.6:14). All of its Authorized Version translations are suggestive of shelter of some kind. It is rendered villages (1 Chron.27:25), ransom (Ex.30:12), satisfaction (Num.35:31), bribe (Amos 5:12). The feminine form, kapporeth, is reserved for the name of the mercy seat, or propitiatory. Hence the great Antitype may be called the Shelter of all who have faith in His blood. Christ is our Propitiatory, or meeting place with God, through faith in His blood (Rom.3:25). The chief priest could not come to the propitiatory without blood. He had to offer a bullock as a sin offering for himself as well as a goat for the sin of the people. This blood he took within the veil and sprinkled on and before the mercy seat. Thus was propitiation effected in the type. It was weak and temporary because the true Propitiatory and the actual Victim had not come. The apostle confines our attention to the Propitiatory Himself and His blood. He is careful to omit any mention of propitiation, for the justification which attends the great Antitype, in this day of grace, far transcends the fullest intimations of the type. Only John speaks of propitiation, and that for another economy. The idea of equivalence is based on the Greek word anti, for. In the three passages which speak of the ransom, this word is used in connection with lutron, ransom. Let us see whether anti conveys this meaning. In Matthew 17:27 we have a most apt illustration. Our Lord, to avoid snaring His enemies, pays for the shelter of His soul and Peter's (Exodus 30:14). This should not read ransom. After the catching of the fish with a stater in its mouth, He tells Peter, "give it to them for anti Me and you." Was the sum given an exact equivalent of the value of our Lord and Peter? It amounted to about sixty-three cents of our money. Peter may not have been worth that much, but shall we insist that, since the word anti denotes equivalence, our Lord's value was less than a dollar? Anti never denotes equivalence. It denotes correspondence. But we are asked to believe that, when it is prefixed, as in antilutron, it must mean an exact equivalent. A perfect parallel is the well known word antitype, (antitupon). What is the force of anti in this word? Everyone knows what a type is. Aaron and David were types of the Messiah. He is the Antitype. He corresponds to the types. But who would dare to limit Him to an exact equivalent of any of the many types which foretold His mission? Surely everyone who loves our Saviour will shrink from dragging down the Lord of glory to the level of the types which foretold Him! Moreover, it is impossible for Him to be the equivalent of all the types and yet worth only one. Antitype, like anti-ransom, does not deal with values but correspondences. Indeed, the great Antitype is so infinitely precious that all the types put together are worthless in comparison with Him. Correspondence is not equivalence. There is not a legitimate reference to ransom in the Word of God which makes it an equivalent. There are many Scriptures which prove, that a ransom is never an equivalent. To investigate this intelligently we must recognize the fact that, in Hebrew, there are two words translated sometimes ransom, sometimes redeem. We distinguish between them by always rendering one ransom [padah], and the other redeem [gaal]. We will give all of the passages in which the ransom "price" is given. In all the variety, it is most remarkable that there is never an equivalent. RANSOM The first time that ransom is spoken of in the Scriptures is in connection with the ransom of the firstborn (Exodus 13:12,13; 34:20). Jehovah claims all the firstling males. That of an ass must be ransomed or its neck broken. What must be given for the ass? A lamb. Surely no one will contend that the actual value of the two is the same. The market price of the lamb was much less than that which it ransomed. Its moral value, as a type of the Lamb of God, was infinitely more. Houses, fields, or unclean animals, in the case of vows, were to be ransomed. In their case there was to be a valuation (Lev. 27:27). Did this sum suffice for a ransom? It did not, for a fifth part was added to make the ransom "price." There is absolutely no possibility of an equivalent here. It is specifically denied. As a rule the "price" paid for ransom was much less in value than the person or thing to be ransomed. But an exception is made in the case of ransoming something vowed to Jehovah. These vows were voluntary in their undertaking, but not as to their fulfillment when undertaken. To discourage rash and unconsiderate making of vows it is made very difficult to escape should one repent of his vow. He must pay the full value and a fifth part more. In other cases the "price" is less than the market value. When giving Aaron the firstborn of all flesh, Jehovah stipulated that mankind and unclean animals must be ransomed (Num.18:15-17). They could not be sacrificed. The "price" was fixed at five shekels, or about three dollars. No estimate of individual cases was made. The meanest of the unclean animals and the son of a king were all rated alike. This practically excludes the idea of an equivalent. The firstlings to be ransomed had such various values that no sum, large or small, could fit every case. When the Levites were taken instead of all the firstborn of the sons of Israel, two hundred and seventy-three men left over and above the number of the Levites had to be ransomed. Jehovah fixed the "price" at five shekels apiece, or one-tenth the price of a man over twenty years who had been vowed to Jehovah. This was the value of an infant. (Compare Num.3:46-48 with Lev.27:3-6). Perhaps we should guard this statement by pointing out that the Companion Bible, in its note on Numbers 3:46, etc., is mistaken. The word used is padah, RANSOM, not gaal, REDEEM, as there stated. REDEMPTION The other word [gaal] is seldom translated ransom (Isa. 51:10). It is almost always redeem, so we are not concerned with it in this connection, except to note the instructive contrast between the "price" of redemption and ransom. If a man in Israel was compelled to sell some of his allotment, a kinsman could restore it to him by redeeming it. As it would come back to him automatically in the jubilee, he only paid its rental until the fifty years would end (Lev.25:24-33). Thus it was that Boaz redeemed Ruth's allotment. The "price" of redemption varied, not according to the value, of the land or the man to be redeemed, but according to the length of time until the next jubilee. The effort to make the jubilee a type of the ransom is an index of the excessive inconsistency of this theory. In the jubilee they went out free, without any "price." Yet we are asked to believe that it is a type of an equivalent! It is neither redemption nor ransom. These examples show us the difference between ransom [padah] and redeem [gaal] in the Hebrew Scriptures. While both release from obligations, ransom has to do with Jehovah's claims, but redemption with man's mortgages. God provides both, in Christ. Israel needs both ransom and redemption. They are the firstborn for whom the Lamb was given to satisfy God's demands. But they also need to have their allotment redeemed by the great Goel or Redeemer, the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Both aspects are brought before us in Hosea's prophecy (Hosea 13:14):
All of the ransomings under the law are types of the great Antitypical Ransom which we are considering. If equivalence were an essential in the Antitype it surely would appear in the type. Yet nothing is more noticeable in these foreshadowings of the ransom than the lack of equivalence in value. If these types teach anything they teach us that the great Ransom was to vary according to circumstances, so as to cover each case. The commercial value of that which was ransomed never determined the amount. Hence it was an elastic, a correspondent ransom, an antilutron, but never an exact equivalent. We are asked to believe that, in every particular, Christ's work is an exact payment to cover the debt of Adam, and He did nothing more than to bring the race back to the position Adam lost. This matter should not be connected with ransom, but justification. It is brought before us in the fifth of Romans. Here Adam and Christ come before us, but there is no equivalence. Rather the contrary. Adam and Christ are contrasted. There are similarities. There is type and antitype, but the type always falls short of the antitype. Adam brought condemnation: Christ did not restore innocence, but brought justification of life. Adam made the many sinners. Christ does not merely make the many neutral, but actually righteous. The likeness is confined to the extent or the scope. Both Adam and Christ affect all mankind. That the ransom exactly covers the sin of Adam is directly denied. "But not as the offense, thus the grace also" (Rom.5:15). Grace superabounds. "And not as through one sinning, the gratuity" (Rom.5:16). Adam sinned only once. Christ's work does not restore from a single sin, but justifies many offenses. If the work of Christ brings us such infinite values beyond what Adam lost, it is futile to speak of His flesh being an exact compensation for Adam's loss. When Adam and Christ are before us in the Scriptures we never read of a single point in which there is equivalence. There is always a great contrast. It is much rather (Rom.5:15,17), for a superexcess of grace not merely meets but overwhelms Adam's Sin. In Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45 the ransom is said to correspond to the needs of many, not of Adam. In 1 Timothy 2:6 the correspondent ransom is for all. If we may introduce the thought of equivalence, it is equivalent to the ransom of all mankind. It corresponds to the thing procured by means of it. Adam is not mentioned in any of the contexts where the ransom is found. We are asked to believe that the ransom "price," once paid, could not be recalled. This sounds reasonable. Two "prices" are given in the Scriptures. His soul for many, Himself for all. The logical deduction is that He now has no soul and He is no longer Himself! To escape this dilemma, we are told that the "price" is His flesh and therefore He cannot take His flesh again. But the ransom "price" is not His flesh. That is a pure invention, in order to escape the absurd conclusion to which a logical deduction leads. When once we understand what is meant by His soul and Himself, all necessity for such reasoning vanishes, for He cannot "take them back." The soul laid down for the ransom is taken up again. He gave His soul, (not His flesh) as a ransom. Of His soul He says: "Therefore the Father is loving Me, seeing that I am laying down My soul that I may be getting it again. No one is taking it away from Me, but I am laying it down of Myself. I have the right to lay it down and I have the right to take it again. This precept, I got from My Father" (John 10:17,18). The fact that the word psuchee is often mistranslated life, instead of soul even in such works as the Emphatic Diaglott, has hid the plain import of this passage. But any concordance of the original will confirm what we are saying. At His death, His soul went to "hell" or "hades?" or the unseen. Did it remain there as the "ransom price?" No! David foretold its fate. "Thou, wilt not abandon my soul in the unseen, neither wilt Thou be giving Thy benign One to be acquainted with decay" (Acts 2:27). This was not true of David. He "speaks concerning the resurrection of Christ that He was neither abandoned in the unseen, nor was His flesh acquainted with decay" (Acts 2:31). Christ's soul, though given for the ransom, was not forfeited forever. What stronger evidence can be produced that the "ransom price" does not rob Christ of His soul or His flesh? How, then, did He give His soul as a ransom (Matt.20:28)? The soul is neither the material part of man, nor the spiritual part. His body was laid in the tomb. His spirit returned to God, when He expired (Ecc.12:7). These are the two entities of which, He, as a Man, was composed. He did not give either. The combination of these two results in sensation, or soul. The body is not conscious, neither is the spirit, but their union is. When His spirit returned to His Father, His soul went to the unseen, and entered oblivion. The suffering of death, both as an act and a fact, is what procures the ransom of many. As we have elsewhere fully explained what the soul is, we will merely repeat that giving His soul, in this connection, denotes the shame, the suffering, the dire distress of Calvary. This is the ransom "price." How can He "take it back?" Does the recovery of His soul, when He was roused from among the dead, recall the sufferings that He endured? Once we understand what was really given for the ransom of many, we see the futility of reasoning about "taking back" anything. When our Lord's soul came back from the oblivion of the unseen, it did not, in the least, diminish the value of His ransom. Moreover, Christ is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all (1 Tim.2:6). Shall we reason that this, of necessity, demands that, at some time, He will become annihilated? "Himself" is not limited to His flesh, or His soul, or even His spirit. Logically, we ought to deduce that He, in His whole humanity, must suffer extinction to satisfy this reasoning. But nothing of this sort is within the realm of sanity. There is no mental difficulty in believing that all there is of Him is devoted to the work of ransoming all mankind, and thus He is giving Himself. This includes His sufferings and adds His glories. Any objection to the tense of the verb (which the Diaglott inconsistently renders "having given" and "gave") does not alter the case. If "Himself" is the "price," He cannot take Himself back, whether it be in the past, present, or future. Nothing less than the annihilation of the Ransomer will satisfy the reasoning. The teaching that the ransom "price," once given, cannot be recalled leads to some most serious dilemmas. One is that Christ, no longer having a soul, is practically dead, and has not been roused at all. Herod sought His soul when He was a Babe (Matt.2:20). That is, he sought to kill Him. As the ransom "price" is not His flesh, but His soul, and we are asked to believe that this could not be taken again, He must be soulless, without feeling or consciousness, just as Adam was before the breath of life combined with his body to make him a living soul (Gen.2:7). Not only was Christ's body or flesh raised from the dead, but His soul was roused from sleep. Indeed, He spoke of His return from death as a rousing more frequently than as a raising. This, however, is seldom apparent in our English versions or in the Emphatic Diaglott, for it is usually translated raise, just as if it were the same word as rise. In Matthew 8:25 the Authorized Version translates correctly awoke. The following are most of the passages which are absolute evidence that the Lord did not lose the ransom "price" (His soul) when He came out of death:
In every one of these He is spoken of as having been roused from the dead, and this is absolutely impossible if His soul was left in the unseen. Thus we have seen that the ransom is not the flesh of Christ, but His soul and Himself. In no case is a ransom an exact equivalent in the Scriptures. It does not consist of some part of Christ which cannot be taken back. The Scriptures distinctly insist that He does take His soul back. There is not a single point in which this philosophy agrees with the Word of God. It is so unscriptural that it is antiscriptural. It logically leads to the denial of Christ's resurrection, which is the most essential and fundamental of all truths. We beg our friends to consider the Scriptures we have referred to in this article. Above all, read the contexts. See that we are not wresting the Word of God to suit our interpretation. Though I might claim that I have more right to speak with authority than almost anyone else, because my translation work has kept me in constant contact with the originals for the last quarter of a century, I renounce all such claims. Found your faith on God's Word. I am not inspired. I am not an official channel. I am nothing but a voice imploring in the prevailing apostasy, "Back to God and His Word!" Look up every passage in your Bible. Better still, turn to it in your Emphatic Diaglott. As this is not uniform in its renderings of the word soul [psuchee], the best and safest plan is to cheek everything by the CONCORDANT VERSION, for it is based on principles which make it easy for those ignorant of Greek to satisfy themselves of the exact facts, and make it impossible for the translator to vary his renderings to suit his own opinions. In conclusion we wish to point out that the vital defect in most theories of "the atonement" or substitution, or ransom, consists in degrading our Lord to the level of those whom He saves. When once we give Him His place preeminent, and see that He has done all for our sakes, in our behalf, not as a mere equal or equivalent, but as One infinitely greater, more precious and glorious, Who has condescended to be our Saviour, not our substitute, difficulties will disappear and our sorrow and shame for Christendom's illogical and degrading speculations concerning Christ's sacrifice will vanish in wonder and adoration of the wisdom and love which it unfolds. |
[Return To Contents]
|