the p; is not to teach any specific doctrine con- aac mediatorial τοῖς and therefore must
MEDIATOR, MEDIATION
not be pressed as though that were its aim. Still He could not have spoken these words without meaning that some suoh work was to be accomplished by Him. (2) The expression ‘give his life’ (dodva τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ) cannot mean spend His life in ser- vice, but must signify surrender it in death as all parallels show (e.g. Mk 8’ 8535, Lk 9% 12”, Jn 10" 1397 1515), (3) This is voluntary (‘ give’—not ‘lose’ His life as in Mk 855), and emphatically the sur- render of His own life (αὐτοῦ) in distinction from the familiar Jewish notion of the giving some pererers or the offering some sacrifice distinct rom the person performing the act. (4) The life of Christ thus surrendered is given as a ransom (λύτρον). The Greek word occurs in as a translation of several Heb. terms (adx3 Lv 25% © ; wip Nu 3-51; jap Ex 219; oi Nu 3) which signify ‘ransom,’ i.e. a payment to effect liberation or to release from penalty. It also appears in the LXX as a rendering of the Heb. 155, which means literally a covering, i.e. a propitiatory gift (Ex 21” 304, Nu 35%, Pr 6 13°), but ‘is restricted by usage to a gift offered as an equivalent for a life that is claimed, the wergild’ (Driver, Deut. 425f.). This second sense, though accepted by some here (Ritschl, Lehre v. der Rechtfertigung u. Vers.* ii. p. 68ff.), is not so appropriate as the primary meaning of the word, since, though the LX) writers give it in place of the Heb. word for ‘atonement,’ there is no evidence that the meaning ‘atonement’ was ever given to the Greek word. Its usage follows its derivation, and wherever it can be tested gives the idea of that which effects release by being paid for that purpose (so Wendt, Lehre Jesu, p. 512ff.). (5) This ransom is to effect the liberation of many. It is for (ἀντί) many. The exact sense of this word will depend on the meaning given to λύτρον. If this could mean ‘atonement,’ the Gr. ἀντί would=‘ instead of’; but if it means ‘ransom,’ ἀντί must=‘in exchange for’; i.e. Christ pays His life as the price in exchange for ΠΕ many are given up or set at liberty. Two further points are left undetermined. First, as to what that is from which the many are set free. The close analogy of the ideas of the passage would suggest death, or we may say a state of slavery (see Lk 418. ‘deliverance to the
captives . . . to set at liberty’), especially that of sin (cf. Jn 8**), Second, as to the person to whom payment is made. The widest differences
of opinion have prevailed on this point, patristic opinion beng for the devil (Origen, Gregory of
yssa), scholastic and later for God (Anselm). Considering that the purpose of the logion is not to expound the doctrine of the atonement but to enforce an example of service, it is probable that both of these poimts are left out of account, so that the teaching goes no further than the idea of deliverance at the cost of Christ’s life voluntarily given up for the purpose.
The other passage in which Jesus Christ ascribes a mediat ἘΝ τ τ τς: to His death occurs in the institution of the Lord’s Supper. The Eucharist itself reveals Christ as a mediator, the elements representing His body and blood as the media through which His people are nourished with Divine life. Lk reports Christ as saying of the bread, ‘This is my body which ts given for you’ (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον, τὴς 221%), and St. Paul the shorter phrase, ‘which is for you’ (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν--- κλώμενον being omitted from the best MSS, 1 Co 11*), words which describe the giving of His body on behalf of or for the benefit of His people. And a specific connexion with His death occurs in the words about the cup. (1) In all four accounts the blood of Christ is connected with the New Cove- nant (Mk 14%, Mt 26, Lk 22”, 1 Co 11%), and in the three accounts of the Gospels it is said to be ‘shed’
MEDIATOR, MEDIATION
(ἐκχυννόμενον. This must point to death. The connexion of the blood with a covenant is based on a familiar Jewish idea—that of confirming a cove- nant by a sacrifice, the blood of which is thrown on the parties to it. Thus in the sealing of the covenant of the law victims are sacrificed, and Moses sprinkles (literally ‘throws’) half the blood on the altar and half on the people (Ex 3455), as though to express the union of Jehovah and Israel in the covenant by means of the blood, the sacri- ficed life of the victim, shared by both. This rite, being familiar to Jews who knew the law, must have been suggested to their minds by our Lord’s words Sa the cup and His blood. He teaches that His blood, i.e. His sacrificed life, con- firms the New Covenant (Jer 31*"-), Ene it effectual and binding. (2) In one of the four accounts it is added that this shedding of our Lord’s blood is ‘for remission of sins’ (els ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, Mt 26%). Jesus had claimed the right to forgive sins much earlier in His ministry (Mk 25"). Now for the first and only time He connects this with His death. The second evangelist uses just the same phrase of John’s baptism of repentance (βάπτισμα μετανοίας els ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν), where the language does not determine whether it is baptism, or repentance, or the two together that are con- nected with forgiveness. Further, in neither case does the language declare that the result is cer- tainly attained, the preposition (els) indicating the end aimed at, not the result reached. Butin the case of its association with Christ other teachings and the whole tenor of His work indicate that it is effectual, that the end is reached—a result which the sequel shows was not always the case with John’s baptism. The baptism of John pointed towards ize Jesus Christ actually effected. Now the connexion of this forgiveness with the shedding of His blood draws our thoughts again to the Jewish sacrificial system, where animals were slain and their blood poured out as atoning offerings. Thus the blood of the sin-offering was placed on the altar (Lv 48). Jews hearing Christ’s words must have understood Him to mean that He was to die as a sacrifice for sin. Wendt considers this phrase to be an addition of the evangelist, but springing out of the consciousness of the Church as a true interpretation of the significance of the Lord’s Supper (Lehre Jesu, p. 521). Though a Pauline thought, it is in Mt, not Lk.