believed that this reconciliation was the issue of that which God had done in the setting forth of Christ Jesus to be a 'propitiation' (Ro 3^). Such a propitiation is the Divinely appointed sanction and constraint of the apostles' doctrine {\6yos) of reconciliation — ' To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses' (2 Co 5'") ; see, further, Propitiation. But whatever may be the God- ward side of reconciliation, they proclaimed on its manward side, with beseeching urgency, a ministry of reconciliation. Their doctrine gave no counten- ance to the idea that man is secure in the Divine favour through something accomplished for him apart from the obedience of his own faith, by which the reconciliation is personally 'received.' The wistful word of their beseeching, ' Be ye reconciled to God' (v.-°), is at one with the lingering pathos of their admonition, 'and working together with him we intreat also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain ' (6'). A man's whole attitude to- wards sin must be changed, otherwise the incidence of this yearning admonition must rest upon him.
A careful examination of the apostolic docu- ments available leaves an irresistible conviction that the Apostolic Church held the view that 'reconciliation' was a change from mutual hos- tility, resulting from the sinfulness of mankind, to mutual friendship between God and man ; that this change was God's own work accomplished in Christ through His life and death ; but that it was also a process, carried on by God in Christ, requir- ing for its completion the receiving of it as a grace and the consequent participation in it as a Divine operation by men individually. Whether this view accords with the teaching of Jesus recorded in the Synoptics, and whether it is an interpretation of the experience of salvation binding permanently upon the faith of the Church are questions beyond the scope of this article.
LiTERATaRE. — H. Crcmer, BiM.-Theol. Lexicon of NT Greeks, Edinburgh, 1880, p. 91 ft. ; Sanday-Headlam, /CC, 'Romans '5, do., 1902, p. 129t. ; E. H. Askwith, 'Sin, and the Need ot Atonement,' in Cambridge Ttn-alogical Essays, London, 1905, p. 175; W. F. Lofthouse, Ethics mid Atonement, do., 1906, pp. 82-179; F. R. M. Hitchcock, The Atonement and Modem rhov/jM, do., 1911, pp. 255-283 ; J. Scott Lidgett, The Spirit- ual Principle of the Atonement, do., 1897, pp. 219-306 ; J. Denney, I'he Death of Christ, do., 1902, p. 139 ff. ; G. B. Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation, Edinburf,'h, 1905, p. 59 IT.; ExpT iv. [1S92-93J 335 f., v. [I893-94J 532 ft. ; W. H. Moberly, ' The Atonement,' in Foundations, London, 1912, p. 265 ff. ; A. Ritschl, Rechtfertiguna und Versohnumj^, Conn, 1895-1902, iii., Eng. tr., Justification and Reconciliation, Edin- burgh, 1900 : D. W. Simon, Reconciliation by Incarnation, do., 1893; W. L. Walker. The Gospel of Reconciliation, do., 1909; R. C. Moberly, Atonement and Personality, London, 1901 ; S. A. MacDowall, Evolution and the Need of Atone- ment, Cambridge, 1912 ; art. ' Reconciliation * in UDB and
DCG. Frederic Platt.
RED.— See COLOURS.
REDEMPTION.— Among the figures employed by the apostolical writers to set forth the nature of the transaction by which our Lord has saved His people, none is more illuminating than that which we are accustomed to speak of as 'redemption.' The terms 'redeem,' 'redemption,' 'redeemer' are a gift of the Latin Bible to our theological lan- guage. They fail in complete exactness as render- ings of the terms which they are used to translate in the apostolical writings, in so far as there still clings to them the notion, intrinsic in their form, that the buying which they denote is distinctively a 'buying back.' The English word 'ransom,' etymologically a doublet of ' redeem,' has more completely lost its etymological implication of specifically ' buying hack,' taking on in its stead rather that of ' buying out.' The series ' ransom,' 'ransoming,' 'Ransomer' might on this account serve better as equivalents of the Greek words cur-
REDEMPTION
REDEMPTION
302
rently employed by tlie apostolical writers to con- vey this idea. These are ; [XiiTpov, Mt 2U'-", Mk 10-">] ; d^riXiTpo^, 1 Ti 2«; Xi;T/)oC<r9ai, Lk ■2i-\ Tit 2", 1 1' I'"; XiW-puo-is, Lk l"* 2**, He il'-' ; awoXi-rpa^ct, Lk 21=**, Ko 3" 8'^, 1 Co P", Eph 1'-'^ 4-"', Col 1", He !)'= 11^ ; [XuTpur-fis, Ac 1'^]. No words provided by the Greek language could convey more distinctly the idea which we commonly exjiress by the term 'ransoming.' Their current eni|iloymenl by tlie writers of the NT to describe the action of our Lord in setting His people free is proof enough of itself that this action was thought of by them not broadly as ' deliverance,' but as a deliverance in the distinct mode of ' ransoming.' If ' deliverance' alone, without implication of the mode of accom- plishing it, had been what was intended to be exjiressed, the simple forms Xt'eif, Xvais, Xvrrip or some of their strengtiiened prepositional compounds lay at liand. These were in common use in the sen.se of ' delivering,' and indeed some of tliem (like XiW^ai and dTroXiWcrSai) bad even acquired the special sense of ' ransoming.' Instead of them, however, the NT writers elected to employ forms which embod}' in their very .structure an open assertion that the mode of deliverance spoken of is bj' ' ransom.' To say XiVrpoK is to say ' ransom ' ; and to say \vTpoOa&ai, Xirrpioais is to say Xvrpov ; while dTroXt'T-pwcris is but a stronger way of saying XuTpuxrts.