“Every Spiritual Blessing”

By Douglas J. Moo

[Douglas J. Moo is Wessner Chair of Biblical Studies, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.]

[This is the second article in the four-part series “Salvation in Paul’s Epistles,” delivered as the W. H. Griffith Thomas lectures at Dallas Theological Seminary, February 5–8, 2019.]

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
—Ephesians 1:3

In my first lecture, I focused on the “why” of salvation in Paul. God inaugurates the new realm and all the blessings we enjoy in it, because in his grace and love he chooses to do so. He ultimately does so for his own glory.

In this second lecture, we turn to the “what” of salvation. In an inevitably cursory way, we want to get a sense of the features of the landscape of salvation in Paul, beginning with the general contours of Paul’s concept of salvation.

General Contours Of Paul’s Soteriological Landscape

When we look over the new realm with the widest perspective, we see Christ. Union with Christ is the fundamental and all-encompassing blessing—and source—of the new realm. The text from Ephesians quoted above ends with the phrase “in Christ,” and this phrase or its equivalent is the leitmotif of the long sentence this verse introduces (Eph 1:3–14). Paul uses “in Christ” language so often and in so many contexts that the union-with-Christ concept it denotes deserves to be considered as the center of Paul’s theology. In terms of our purposes here, then, our being “in Christ” is the fundamental blessing from which all the others flow.

Focusing our survey of the new realm a bit more narrowly, five general conceptions stand out.

First, “new creation.” This might seem like an odd starting point, since the phrase occurs only twice in Paul (Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17). We begin here because we think this conception is the most general of those under consideration: it encompasses the breadth of God’s new realm work. To be sure, many interpreters think it refers narrowly to the Christian, as a “new creation” in Christ. This view is represented in the English Standard Version translation of 2 Corinthians 5:17a: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” Others think “new creation” refers to the new community, especially in its Galatian context. However, the phrase, which appears nowhere else in the New Testament and not at all in the Septuagint, probably echoes Isaiah’s expansive vision of God’s redemptive work extending to the entire cosmos, encom-passing “new heavens and a new earth” (Isa 65:17; see 66:22). Jewish authors sometimes used “new creation” in this sense (for example, Jub 1:29, 4:26, 1 En 72:1, 1QS 4:25, and 2 Bar 44:12). “New creation” is Paul’s shorthand for the entirety of God’s redemptive work, the new state of affairs inaugurated by Christ, including individual renewal, community restoration, and cosmic redemption.[1] The phrase is therefore an important reminder that the new realm, while existing in this era mainly in transformed individuals and the church, will one day encompass nothing less than all the created universe.

A second general feature of the new realm is “new covenant.” Surprisingly, in light of its importance in the Old Testament and in Paul’s Jewish environment, Paul uses the word “covenant” (διαθήκη) only nine times. “Covenants”—perhaps referring to the several iterations of God’s covenant with Israel—signal God’s special gifts to Israel (Rom 9:4; see also Eph 2:12, “covenants of promise”). At the outset of Israel’s history stands the promissory covenant God entered into with Abraham (Gal 3:17; compare also Rom 11:27, in light of 11:28). The contrast between “covenants” in Galatians 4:24 suggests that this Abrahamic covenant finds its fulfillment, or culmination, in a covenant that brings God’s people into the new realm of freedom. This contrast between the “old” covenant of Sinai and the new covenant inaugurated in Christ is explicit in 2 Corinthians 3 (see vv. 6, 14). The foundational nature of “new covenant” in Paul is implied also by his citation of Christ’s “word of institution” over the cup in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:25).

However, I would argue that “new covenant,” as a concept, is far more important in Paul than the number of explicit references indicate.[2] Paul’s regular description of the church as the place where Old Testament prophecies of restoration are being fulfilled confirms the textual evidence (cited above) that he has taken over the fundamental “covenant” structure of the prophets. Arguing that the people of Israel had broken the original covenant (Isa 24:5; Jer 11:10; 22:9; 31:32; 34:18; Ezek 16:59; 17:18, 19; 44:7; Hos 6:7; 8:1), the prophets predict that God will enter into a “new covenant” with his people (Jer 31:31; compare Isa 59:21)—an “everlasting covenant” (Isa 55:3; 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 16:60–62; 25:26), or “covenant of peace” (Isa 54:10; Ezek 34:25, 26) that the servant of the Lord will inaugurate (Isa 42:6; 49:8). Paul reflects this fundamental “covenant” structure in frequent claims that Old Testament prophecies about the new covenant are fulfilled in the church of his day (for example, Hos 1:10; 2:20 in Rom 9:25–26; Isa 11:10 in Rom 15:12; Isa 49:8 in 2 Cor 6:2; Jer 32:38 and Ezek 37:27 in 2 Cor 6:16).[3] Paul’s claim that the church of his day is the place where God’s new covenant is being enacted is especially clear in his claim that believers enjoy distinctive new covenant blessings. Standing out among these blessings is the bestowal of God’s Spirit.

The “gift of the Spirit” is, then, the third broad contour in Paul’s landscape of salvation. The prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 44:3; 59:21; Ezek 11:19; 36:26–27; 37:14; 39:29; Zech 12:10 [?]; Joel 2:28–32). The eschatological gift of the Spirit comes upon God’s people for the first time at Pentecost (Acts 2) and becomes the decisive mark of true conversion (Acts 8:15–19; 9:17; 10:44–47 [compare 11:15–16]; 19:6). For Paul, also, possession of the Spirit is the key identifying mark of belonging to the eschatological people of God. When he reminds the Galatians of their entry into salvation, he puts it in terms of receiving the Spirit (3:2, 3, 5). Romans 8:9 is especially clear: “You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ” (see also Rom 8:14; 1 Cor 12:13; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; 11:4; Gal 4:6; Eph 1:13; 4:30).

Fourth, and continuing the focus on blessings given to believers, is “salvation.”[4] Paul refers to this concept over sixty times. While a few instances are debated, it is likely that every occurrence of the word group in Paul refers to deliverance in a theological sense.[5] “Salvation” is an umbrella soteriological concept in Paul,[6] most likely taken from key Old Testament prophecies, especially in Isaiah, involving God’s promise to deliver his people Israel and restore them to their inheritance.[7] “By this gospel you are saved” is Paul’s introduction to his famous summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8. Christ followers can be described generally as “those who are being saved” (1 Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 2:15); the Christian message is “the gospel of your salvation” (Eph 1:13). While these texts make clear that salvation covers the entirety of Christian experience, salvation language often focuses on the time of ultimate deliverance: our salvation, Paul writes to the Roman Christians, is “nearer than when we first believed” (Rom 13:11). Paul typically uses salvation in an absolute sense. But he occasionally also specifies what believers are saved from: the final outpouring of wrath (Rom 5:9; compare 1 Thess. 5:9; compare 1 Cor 3:15, with its comparison between being “saved” and “escaping through the flames”) and, once, what they are saved for: “his heavenly kingdom” (2 Tim 4:18, NRSV).[8]

A fifth umbrella conception is “life.” “Life,” as we would expect, is often contrasted with “death.” With Genesis 3 in view, Paul at times uses death to refer to the judgment under which all people fall because of sin. As its opposite, “life” often has an additional forensic flavor (note, for example, its contrast with “wrath” in Romans 2:8, and with “condemnation” in 5:18). However, Paul ultimately uses the language of life so widely that it should also be seen as a general way of connoting the blessings of the new realm. For example, 2 Corinthians 2:15–16 says, “For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life. And who is equal to such a task?” Paul often qualifies “life” as “eternal” (αἰώνιος; see Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:22, 23; Gal 6:8; 1 Tim 1:16; 6:12; Titus 1:2; 3:7). More so than “salvation,” “life” refers approximately equally in Paul to the life believers already enjoy, and to the life they will finally enjoy in the consummated kingdom.[9] When life refers to this “not yet” side of our experience, it often indicates, or is associated with, resurrection (1 Cor 15:42, 45; see also Gal 6:8).

Specific Features Of Paul’s Soteriological Landscape

With the general contours now in place, we can zero in on some of the more specific features of Paul’s soteriological landscape. Here, however, the map gets more complicated, even confused. Landforms are not always clearly marked; one folds into another. Paul employs many different terms and images to depict the blessings of the new realm. We run the danger of artificially isolating concepts that are intertwined with others or of imposing a structure on Paul’s teaching that is simply not there. However, while the risk of oversimplifying and overgeneralizing is real, it seems possible to identify some of the main features of Paul’s soteriology.

Paul typically presents the contours of the new realm in terms of a contrast with the old realm. Sometimes he does so explicitly, and sometimes implicitly. We propose, then, to get a sense of the rich and variegated map of new-realm salvation by identifying and analyzing the specific word images Paul uses to portray the transfer from old realm to new—from “plight” to “solution,” to use language popular with modern Pauline theologians.

Justification: Overcoming Condemnation

The best-known new-realm blessing in Paul is “justification.” The concept of justification is closely aligned with key words from the δικαι- root. The three key words are the noun δικαιοσύνη (“righteousness”), which Paul uses 57/58 times, the verb δικαιόω (“justify”), which occurs 27 times in Paul, and the adjective δίκαιος (“righteous,” “just”), which appears 18 times. This vocabulary is not spread evenly across the Pauline corpus, being clustered in Romans, Galatians, and Philippians 3. Also, as we will see, not all these words contribute to the concept of justification.

In a break with most of the Christian tradition, the Protestant Reformers insisted that God’s justifying work is a purely judicial action; we might add “forensic alone” to the list of well-known Reformation solas (“faith alone,” “grace alone,” etc.).[10] The Reformers’ insistence on this point set them at odds with the bulk of the Roman Catholic tradition, a situation highlighted at the Council of Trent, where the claim was made that justification is “not the remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man” (chap. 7). The theological landscape is much more complex these days, with some Roman Catholics giving greater attention to the forensic element, while some Protestants explicitly distance themselves from a “forensic only” view. We will analyze reasons for this shift below, but begin by briefly sketching why a “forensic only” view of justification is correct.

First, Paul’s use of the verb δικαιόω takes up the use of the Hiphil form of צדק in the Old Testament. This verb means “declare righteous,” not “make righteous.” Its forensic flavor is undeniable.

Second, several contexts in which Paul uses the verb make clear that he retains this forensic focus. In Romans 2:13, for instance, δικαιόω, “justify,” as well as the adjective δίκαιος, “righteous,” are antonyms of “judge” and “condemn” (κρίνω and ἀπόλλυμι): “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Similarly, in Romans 8:33–34, δικαιόω, “justify,” is the opposite of κατακρίνω, “condemn”: “Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.” Paul’s insistence that justification is “before God” also lends a judicial flavor to the word (Rom 3:20; Gal 3:11). Paul links justification with the forgiveness of sins (Rom 4:5–8). He views justification in parallel with reconciliation, which is a matter of restored relationship rather than transformation (Rom 5:9–10; compare 2 Cor 5:14–21). Also significant are contexts where Paul does not use δικαιόω with reference to justification per se, but where the word clearly has a judicial flavor (1 Cor 4:4; 1 Tim 3:16). Paul cites two Old Testament texts to buttress his teaching about justification (Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4), and, while there is controversy over both texts, they arguably use δικ- words in the sense of standing with God. Paul uses a number of “minor” words from the δικ- root; these also have a distinctly forensic flavor.[11] Finally, we add an argument from silence (which by its nature cannot be overly compelling). It is striking that, after having developed a clear teaching about justification in Romans 1–5, Paul in Romans 6 asks whether the grace found in justification opens the way to cavalier sinning. Paul’s response is not to say, “Well, of course you should not sin because you have enjoyed the grace of justification; justification itself has transformed you.” Rather, he argues from the believer’s participation in Christ’s death: we die to sin’s power with the one who died for us to justify us.[12]

We noted above that Roman Catholic theologians have traditionally contested this “forensic only” sense of the word, arguing that it denotes not just a legal, but also a “real” or “effectual” “making right.” A significant number of recent interpreters from a variety of theological traditions have argued much the same, expanding the scope of justification to include a transformative element.[13] For instance, Michael Gorman’s definition of justification is:

Justification is the establishment of right covenant relations—fidelity to God and love for neighbor—by means of God’s liberating grace in Christ’s faithful and loving death and our co-crucifixion with him. Justification therefore means co-resurrection with Christ to a new life of faithfulness toward God and love toward others, expressed concretely as biblical justice, within the Spirit-empowered people of God, with the certain hope of God’s welcome, on the day of judgment, into the fullness of resurrection life.[14]

The case for a “more-than-forensic” meaning of justification in Paul rests on three main arguments.

First, it is argued that “forensic-only” advocates can maintain their position only by arbitrarily ignoring many occurrences of the relevant words in Paul. For instance, in Romans 6:7, Paul grounds his claim that Christians are no longer slaves to sin on the fact that Christians, when they die with Christ “are justified [δεδικαίωται] from sin.” Translations, such as the New International Version, which render this as “set free from sin,” simply mask the fact that “justification” here involves rescue from sin’s power as well as its penalty. Similarly, later in the same chapter, Paul teaches that “obedience” is bound up with righteousness (6:13, 16, 18, 19, 20): “righteousness” is more than judicial standing. The issue here is methodological: which occurrences of lexemes from the δικαι- root should “count” toward the doctrine of justification? Word and concept are not the same. Gorman, whom we quoted above, insists that we should count all the language unless and until there is strong reason not to do so.[15] The point may be granted.

However, in our view, there are sound contextual reasons for thinking that these occurrences in Romans 6 should not, indeed, be used to develop the doctrine of justification. Romans 6:7, for instance, uses a combination of verb—δικαιόω—and preposition—ἀπό—that Paul uses nowhere else. The word δικαιοσύνη in 6:13–20 occurs in a “language game” that features distinctively different vocabulary than that which is found in the earlier teaching about righteousness. To be sure, “righteousness” is contrasted with “death” in verse 16, but the fundamental contrast is with “wickedness” (v. 13), “sin” (vv. 18, 20), and “impurity” (v. 19). This shift in argument and key vocabulary suggests that Paul in Romans 6 is using δικαιοσύνη, in continuity with the Old Testament and other New Testament authors, to refer to appropriate ethical behavior (for example, Rom 6:13, 16, 18, 19, 20; Eph 5:9; 1 Tim. 6:11; see Matt 5:20; Luke 1:75; Acts 10:35; James 1:20). The Old Testament and Paul’s own contextual uses make clear that he operates with two semantic categories of δικαι- language—for the sake of brevity, the “moral” and the “forensic”—which can be distinguished on the basis of sound syntagmatic considerations.

A second argument for a transformative aspect in justification is the relationship Paul draws between justification and transformation. For instance, in Galatians 2:15–21, Paul moves from justification (vv. 16–17) to co-crucifixion with Christ (vv. 19–20), while in 1 Corinthians 6, Paul cites “justification” (v. 9) to make a claim about “righteous” conduct.[16] However, association does not mean identification. It has always been acknowledged by the best defenders of a “forensic-only” view of justification that being justified necessarily means that one is also “sanctified,” “transformed,” turned into an obedient child of God. But nothing in any of the texts cited suggests that justification must itself include these transformative elements.

Third, a forensic-only view, it has often been argued, turns justification into a “legal fiction.” This claim rests on an erroneous notion that the word “justify” must by its nature refer to ethical transformation. Only with this assumption one can make the argument that a forensic-only declaration of righteousness must be a fiction. Quite the contrary: God’s “word” of “justified” is a powerful, effective speech-act that creates a new reality—but, as the meaning of the word suggests, a forensic reality.[17]

Finally, in general, we should stress that the concern about adequately grounding the vital work of transformation in the people of God is understandable. But the concern can be met, not by trying to smuggle a transformative element into justification, but by noting the inextricable connection in Paul between justification and transformation: both are inevitable products of being “in Christ.” Calvin is particularly clear on this point.[18] We should, additionally, note the importance of God’s Spirit in bridging what some might see as a gap between the forensic verdict of “justified” and the transformed life of the believer. Galatians makes this point particularly clearly. Since Christ is the “seed of Abraham” (Gal 3:16), it can be only in and through Christ that a person can receive the promised “blessing of Abraham”—and, Paul says, “the promise of the Spirit” (3:14). The “promised Spirit” links the first part of Galatians, with its focus on justification, to the last part, with its focus on the new life of the believer. With the “blessing of Abraham” (in context, justification), God also gives the Spirit—which becomes the controlling power in the believer’s life.[19]

Reconciliation: Overcoming Enmity

A second route Paul traces from human plight to solution uses the language of personal relationship. Two closely related word groups, “reconciliation” / “reconcile” and “peace”/ “making peace,” are key to this concept. Reconciliation language is not common in Paul, occurring only in Romans 5 (vv. 10, 11), 2 Corinthians 5 (vv. 18, 19, 20), Ephesians 2 (vv. 15–16), and Colossians 1 (vv. 20, 22). However, “peace” is a more common idea in Paul. Its close relationship to reconciliation is indicated by the way Paul interprets one in light of the other (compare Rom 5:1 and 10, 11; Col 1:20). Paul also refers to “peace” as the final soteriological state (Rom 2:10) and, especially often, the present inaugurated state (Rom 8:6; 14:17; Eph 2:14, 15, 17; 6:15; Col 3:15; and all thirteen letters feature “peace” in their opening prayer wish [Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philem 3]; see also prayer wishes elsewhere [Rom 15:13; Gal 6:16; Eph 6:23]). Paul also speaks twice of the “God of peace” (1 Thess 5:23) and once of the “Lord of peace” (Rom 16:20; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 4:9; 2 Thess 3:16).

Paul refers forty times to this concept via these two word groups, the references are scattered fairly evenly throughout his letters, the scope of the reconciling work is extremely broad—including individual believers, the Christian community, Jews and Gentiles, and the entire cosmos—and it is a blessing that God’s people enjoy as well as one they are charged to spread. Consequently, it is no wonder that the concept has received considerable attention in recent years, and has been thought by some to lie at the very heart of Paul’s theology.[20] An additional virtue of this concept is its ties to the Old Testament. To be sure, “reconciliation” language is virtually absent from the Septuagint,[21] but “peace,” translating the Hebrew shalom, is very common, often denoting the promised eschatological state of “wholeness” (for example, Isa 9:7; 52:7; 54:10; 55:12; 66:12; Jer 30:10; 33:6; Ezek 37:26; Zech 9:10). Reconciliation reveals the difficulty noted above in neatly separating out means and outcome. The act of reconciliation that took place definitively in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) must be appropriated (v. 20) and leads to a state of reconciliation (Rom 5:1; 8:6).

The need for reconciliation obviously implies a disruption in relationship. Sin is again the ultimate reason for the disruption, as 2 Corinthians 5:19 suggests: God’s reconciling of the world to himself involves, negatively, “not counting people’s sins against them.” Sin has brought a state of enmity between God and humans—an enmity that goes in both directions (Rom 5:10; 11:28; Col 1:21). Not only are people hostile to God; we may also say that, in a certain sense, God is hostile to humans as well, as Paul’s frequent references to wrath make clear.

Redemption/Freedom From The Powers Of This World: Overcoming Slavery

Another route that we can chart in Paul’s soteriological landscape runs from slavery to freedom. Pauline scholars have focused attention on this concept in recent years, as a central element of the so-called “apocalyptic Paul” movement. Often dismissing any notion that God is required to act in some way to satisfy his own justice, advocates of this approach think that Paul presents God as responding to the human predicament by a sovereign liberating act.[22] The fundamental human problem is imprisonment under powers—especially the powers of sin and death. God’s response to that problem is, appropriately, to liberate humans by an exercise of his power in Christ. Leaving aside for now the meaning and appropriateness of the term “apocalyptic,” we simply note here that the movement both reflects and fuels the renewed popularity of the Christus Victor model of the atonement.

Several vocabulary combinations contribute to this theme. One, of course, is Paul’s recourse to the contrast between slavery and freedom to denote the nature of old realm life, versus life in the new realm. The old realm is dominated by sin, death, and the law. People are helpless captives of these powers, as their inevitable sinning in and because of Adam means that they suffer under penalty of death (Rom 5:12–21). The law, the torah God gave Israel, may have been expected to change or ameliorate this situation, but it has made the situation worse: sin uses God’s good law to bring and confirm people in death (Rom 7:7–25; see also Gal 3:19; Rom 5:20). Believers therefore are “put to death” to the law, even as they “die to sin” (Rom 7:4; 6:2). As Paul makes clear in these contexts, “dying to” is language for transfer out of the realm of slavery (compare Rom 6:2 with 6:6, 14). Having “died to sin,” believers are “set free” from sin (Rom 6:18, 22; compare 8:2). Paul can therefore characterize our new status generally in terms of freedom: “for freedom Christ has set you free” (Gal 5:1; compare v. 13; also Gal 2:4; 1 Cor 7:22; 2 Cor 3:17).

Another set of terms that point to this “power”-oriented conception of Christ’s work are those drawn from the λυτρ- root: the verbs λυτρόω (“redeem”: Titus 2:14), the noun ἀπολύτρωσις (“redemption”: Rom 3:24; 8:23; 1 Cor 1:30; Eph 1:7, 14; 4:30; Col 1:14), and the noun ἀντίλυτρον (“ransom”: 1 Tim 2:6). Paul uses the noun “redemption” in places as a general depiction of the new state of affairs believers enjoy in Christ. For example, 1 Corinthians 1:30 states, “It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.” Suggesting the same broad idea are two texts in which Paul refers to “redemption” as something believers possess, and he associates it with “the forgiveness of sins” (Eph 1:7; Col 1:14). The breadth of the concept is also revealed in the way Paul can use it to describe both past (Rom 3:24; 1 Tim 2:6; Titus 2:14) and future (Rom 8:23; Eph 1:14) acts of deliverance. Therefore, the tendency to use “redemption” as a general way of referring to salvation has some basis in Paul; all this might suggest that we should include redemption in the umbrella category of soteriological terms we considered above.

We include the concept here, however, because the basic meaning of the word group has to do with liberation. While the Septuagint uses Paul’s favorite word from this root—ἀπολυτρωσις, “redemption”—only once (Dan 4:34), the cognate verb λυτρόω, “redeem,” occurs 108 times, and most often refers to a deliverance or liberation from a state of bondage or slavery. Reference to Israel’s “redemption” from Egypt in the Exodus, or to her deliverance from other nations when God ends her exile are especially significant.[23] Deuteronomy 7:8 is typical: “But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.” Paul’s use of “redemption” language might suggest, then, that new covenant believers experience a “liberation” similar to that which old covenant believers experienced in the Exodus, and the event for which they longed—the restoration of their nation from Exile.

It is often thought that redemption language has a further theologically important nuance: a “price paid” as the basis for the liberation. This sense of the language is obvious in its application to the manumission of slaves in Paul’s day: a slave or prisoner of war was “redeemed” through the paying of a “ransom.” This notion of “legal release by paying a price” is also found in some of the occurrences of the language in the Septuagint. See, for example:

If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death. However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem [Septuagint δώσει λύτρα] his life by the payment of whatever is demanded (Exod 21:28–30).

No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them—the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough—so that they should live on forever and not see decay (Ps 49:7–9).

In other Septuagint texts, however, the notion of a “price paid” appears to have been lost, suggesting that “redemption” language had come to have simply the general sense of “deliver” or “liberate.”[24] As we note above, this seems to be true for some of Paul’s uses of the language. However, there is also reason to think that the idea of a “costly payment” or “price paid” continues to be connoted in some of the places where Paul uses the language.[25] Not only is it arguable that this is the normal meaning of this word group, but Paul also uses similar language of “buy” or “buy up” in just this sense.[26] Paul uses the language of “buy up” with reference to a “cost” in parallel texts such as in Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (see also Gal 4:5). Paul makes this same point elsewhere: “you were bought at a price” (ἀγοράζω; see also 1 Cor 7:23).[27] Taken together, these texts provide a solid basis for the conclusion that Paul views liberation from bondage as an important benefit of the new realm, and that this liberation occurs only at the “cost” of the death of Christ.

Paul does not usually denote the situation from which we have been liberated, but context sometimes helps here. For instance, in Romans 3:24 Paul roots our justification in “the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” This claim is the response to the way Paul presents the human predicament in Romans 3:9: all humans “are under the power of sin.” The human problem is not simply that we all sin; it is, ultimately, the problem of slavery under sin’s power. At the same time, it is quite likely that Paul is reflecting the way this language is applied in the Old Testament. As God liberated his people from slavery in Egypt and from their slavery to other nations in the Exile, so now, in Christ, the ultimate Exodus, the true “return from exile” takes place.

Finally, of course, we note the best-known textual basis for the Christus Victor theme in Paul, Colossians 2:13–15:

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

The role of Christ’s death in this “triumph” over the powers is not entirely clear, since the last word of this quotation in the New International Version, “cross,” translates a Greek pronoun that could refer to Christ (as it does, for example, in the English Standard Version and Christian Standard Bible). However, the prominence of the cross in a somewhat parallel verse earlier in the letter (1:20) suggests that Paul might be referring to the cross here as well. Believers’ freedom from the oppression of spiritual powers is an important theme in Colossians (see 2:10 and also 1:16; perhaps 2:8, 20 [if στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, as many think, refers to spiritual powers]). While we will develop this point later, it is worth noting here that the means by which this victory is accomplished is the removal of “the charge of our legal indebtedness”: the victory is won through the removal of condemnation by means of Christ’s death.

Holiness: Overcoming Uncleanness

The last few decades have seen a renewal of interest in the temple idea, to some degree a product of renewed focus among Old Testament theologians on the significance of “sacred space.” A variety of Pauline themes and vocabulary could conceivably be brought into the scope of temple, but here we will simply mention that Paul explicitly refers to the idea in four texts. One refers to the bodies of individual believers as temples (1 Cor 6:19), while three others depict the entire Christian community as a temple (1 Cor 3:16–17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Paul applies temple language to the church especially to emphasize the holiness of the community. Indwelt by the Holy Spirit, both individual believers and the Christian community are to live out their status as a holy temple in a life dedicated to God. Of course, we touch here on another fundamental biblical-theological theme. Israel was called to imitate their “holy” God by being a “holy” people (for example, Lev 11:44–45; 19:2; compare 1 Pet 1:16)—set apart from the world and dedicated to serve and imitate God. Another important contour of the new realm of salvation, then, is holiness, which refers both to the holy status enjoyed by Christians as God’s people (for example, believers as “holy ones” [ἁγίοι]; Rom 6:19, 22; 1 Cor 1:30; Col 3:12) and to the holy calling implicit in that status (2 Cor 7:1; Eph 1:4; 4:24; 5:26–27; Col 1:22; 1 Thess 3:13; 4:4, 7; 1 Tim 2:2, 8; 2 Tim 1:9; 2:21; Titus 1:8). Another concept that could be integrated into this category is “forgiveness.” This is a minor focus in Paul; he uses the language of forgiveness with reference to the work of Christ only six times: Romans 4:7 (quoting Ps 32:1–2)], Eph 1:7; 5:32; Col 1:14; 2:13; 3:13).[28] We mention it here because being made holy involves, negatively, being forgiven. However, forgiveness focuses more on the issue of guilt, while “holiness” involves the removal of uncleanness.

Paul says little explicitly about how these relational identities that characterize our new realm existence are procured. In other words, though the conceptions we have considered in this section fill out our view of the outcomes of atonement, they don’t help very much in identifying means. One perhaps obvious point should be made: in all these conceptions, the role of the Holy Spirit in creating, sustaining, and making us aware of these benefits is significant. We might therefore stress a straightforward observation: for Paul, the benefits of Christ’s work, while varied and extensive, can to some degree, be traced back to the most basic and extensive of those benefits: possession of the Spirit.

A Home For The Homeless: Overcoming Estrangement

The fourth route from old realm to new realm that we will trace embraces several rather diverse sets of contrasts and conceptions that can generally be lumped under the category of “new relational identity.” We might summarize by grouping our material into three basic conceptions.

First, life in the new realm involves living as “sons of God.” We deliberately retain the masculine language in order to convey the full force of the imagery. Adoption was a feature of Paul’s Greco-Roman environment. When in that culture a man was adopted, that man became legally entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to his new status. Paul celebrates the fact that, in Christ, men and women can equally become “sons” in this sense. Paul explicitly mentions adoption in only three passages: Romans 8:14–17, 23; Galatians 4:4–7; and Ephesians 1:5. However, for Paul’s soteriology the concept of adoption has significance out of proportion to its few explicit mentions.

First, the concept embraces both the believer’s “already” and “not yet”: we now have the Spirit of adoption, leading us to cry “Abba, Father” (Rom 8:15), but we also await the day we receive our full adoption, when our bodies are redeemed (8:23). In both Galatians 4 and Romans 8, Paul transitions from our present to our future via the idea of inheritance: a son is, by definition, an heir; and an heir, by definition, while legally assured of his or her inheritance, does not yet possess it. So, Paul makes clear, as God’s sons, we rejoice in what we now have and long for what is still to come.

Second, the conception ties into an Old Testament theme. In addition to the influence from the Roman legal institution of adoption, Paul undoubtedly intends us to draw a comparison with Israel as God’s “son” (see Exod 4:22; Jer 3:19; 31:9; Hosea 11:1).

Third, as Paul makes clear in both Galatians 4 and Romans 8, our sonship is tied to Christ’s own sonship: like him, we cry “Abba, Father” (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6); we are sons because God sent “his Son” (Gal 4:4). We are sons in him, who is the Son (note the references to God’s son in Rom 8:3, 29, 32). Perhaps we can discern here a secondary connection. In Romans 8:29, Paul claims that we are “predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.” As sons, God’s goal for us is that we increasingly become like the Son. He is himself “the image of God” (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15), and our destiny is to share, derivatively and only partially, in that image. This conception also picks up a key biblical-theological theme. In Christ, God is restoring humans to that “image of God” in which he first created us, an image that, while never lost, has been sadly defaced by sin. At the risk of extending this chain of references to the breaking point, perhaps we could also bring in the concept of “glory,” since Paul implies some degree of relationship between the concepts of “image” and “glory” (see Rom 1:23; 1 Cor 11:7; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4). Continuing a central Old Testament theme, “glory” denotes, first of all, the “weighty presence” of God himself (Rom 3:7, 23; 6:4). In a move typical of Paul’s high Christology, Christ is then said also to possess, or share, this glory (Rom 8:17; 1 Cor 2:8; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4; 2 Thess 2:14; Titus 2:13). Within the soteriological realm, Paul usually uses “glory” to refer to the ultimate state of our new realm existence (Rom 5:2; 8:17, 18, 21; 9:23; 1 Cor 2:7; 15:43; 2 Cor 4:17; Col 1:27; 3:4; 1 Thess 2:12; 2 Thess 2:14; 2 Tim 2:10; compare Rom 2:7), but he can also claim that we are even now “being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory” (2 Cor 3:18). Here again is expressed the underlying logic of participation: we are joined to Christ, the Son, the image of God, the “Lord of glory,” and because of that union we are sons, being created in his image and destined for glory.[29]

One final word about the adoption conception. Adoption language brings together in one image the legal and the relational—two perspectives on new realm life that, as important as they each are in their own right, need finally to be deeply connected to each other. When we are adopted as God’s sons, we are given a new legal standing at the same time as we are integrated into a new family: we are “members of [God’s] household” (Eph 2:19).

The second conception to consider is the idea of being God’s people. Obviously, being the people of God is a central theme of the Old Testament depiction of Israel, both in terms of her destiny and in terms of her call. During the Exile, God continues to promise Israel that he would be their God and they would be his people (for example, Jer 12:16; 32:38; Ezek 14:11; 37:23). Paul quotes this language and sees it fulfilled in the experience of the Christians of his day (2 Cor 6:16). Another dimension of the “people” language is its application to Gentiles. In Romans 9:25–26, Paul quotes language from Hosea 1 and 2, applying to Gentile Christians the passage’s promise that the northern tribes of Israel would be moved from the status of “not my people” to “children of living God.” In a Pauline motif that many recent scholars have rightly drawn attention to, the apostle is deeply concerned to stress the full integration of Gentiles into the new covenant people of God. Perhaps this “people” conception is also where we might integrate Paul’s teaching that Christians receive an “inheritance.” In the Old Testament, this “inheritance” is especially the land (for example, Deut 31:7; Josh 11:23; Ps 105:11; Jer 3:18; Ezek 47:13). Claiming that Christians have an inheritance (Gal 3:18; 4:30; Eph 1:14, 18; 5:5; Col 1:12; 3:24; compare “inherit” in 1 Cor 6:9–10; 15:50; Gal 5:21), then, probably implicitly claims that believers, both Jew and Gentile (note Eph 3:6), are the recipients of this promise of God—not in the form of a single piece of geography, but in the form of the whole cosmos (see Rom 4:13).

Notes

1. See especially Douglas J. Moo, “Creation and New Creation,” Bulletin of Biblical Research 20 (2010): 39–60.
2. See also, especially, Michael J. Gorman, The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Testament (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014).
3. This pattern is elaborated in G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011).
4. For salvation as a broad category in Paul, see, for example, Garwood P. Anderson, Paul’s New Perspective: Charting a Soteriological Journey (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2016), 298–308.
5. The most debated occurrence is σωτηρίανin Philippians 1:19, which most English versions translate as “deliverance” (for example, New Revised Standard Version; New International Version; English Standard Version; note “release” [from prison] in Common English Bible). A compelling argument for taking all occurrences of salvation language in Philippians to denote salvation in a theological sense is found in Paul Cable, “‘We Await a Savior’: ‘Salvation’ in Philippians” (PhD diss., Wheaton College, 2017).
6. The noun “salvation” (σωτηρία) occurs 18 times in Paul; the verb “save” (σώζω) 29 times, the title “Savior” (σωτήρ) 12 times, and the adjective “saving” (σωτήριος) twice. Ten of Paul’s uses of σωτήρ occur in the Pastoral Epistles, where Paul uses the title for both God and Christ (see, for example, Titus 1:3–4). See also Ephesians 5:23 and Philippians 3:20. Also relevant is the verb ρύομαι, which Paul usually uses for deliverance from this-worldly dangers but which he uses four times to refer to spiritual deliverance (Rom 7:24; 11:26 [=Isa 59:20]; Col 1:13; 1 Thess 1:10).
7. See 2 Corinthians 6:2, quoting from Isaiah 49:8: “In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation [σωτηρίας] I helped you.” See also the quotation from Isaiah 59:20 in connection with the “salvation” of “all Israel” (Rom 11:26).
8. See also 2 Timothy 1:10, which claims that “our Savior, Christ Jesus,” “has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”
9. By my count, eleven references to “life” focus on the present, and nine on the future. Many occurrences have no clear temporal focus.
10. Indeed, Alistair McGrath argues that it was this “deliberate and systematic distinction . . . between justification and regeneration” that distinguished Protestant from medieval Roman Catholic theology (Iustitia Dei, 1.183–86). Without denying the basic point, it should be noted that other scholars think that precedents for the Reformation view are found in the earlier tradition (for example, Michael Horton, Justification, New Studies in Dogmatics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018], 222–29).
11. See δικαίωμα (“just decree”; see Rom 1:32; 2:26; 5:16, 18; 8:4); δικαίωσις (“justifying”; see 4:25; 5:18); δικαιοκρισία (“righteous judgment”; see 2:5); ἔνδικος (“just”; see 3:8). Antonyms are also revealing: the noun ἀδικία (“unrighteousness”), with the alpha-privative prefix (much like our “un-”), refers, as one would expect, to behavior that God condemns (1:18 [twice], 29; 2:8; 3:5; 6:13; 1 Cor 13:6; 2 Cor 12:13; 2 Thess 2:10, 12; 1 Tim 2:19; see also ἄδικος in 1 Cor 6:1, 9), but it can also refer to an alleged failure to “act in a just way” on God’s part (Rom 9:14; see also ἄδικος in 3:5). It is worth noting the degree to which “righteousness” language in general clusters in Romans.
12. N. T. Wright endorses a “forensic-only” view of justification, but he gives it a particular spin, based on the importance of the category of covenant. To be “justified,” he argues, is to be declared a member of the people of God, with special focus on the inclusion of the Gentiles. This declaration is the recognition of an already existing reality: it is God’s “call” that transfers people into the covenant, while justification enables us to know who is in and who is out. See, for example, N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 59–101. However, the use of the verb in the Old Testament and in Paul offers little basis for the notion that the word means “to be included in God’s people.” Stephen Westerholm is quite blunt: “So ‘righteousness’ does not mean, and by its very nature cannot mean, membership in a covenant” (Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013], 63). To be justified, of course, entails that one becomes a member of God’s people, but the word itself does not mean this. As Simon Gathercole insists, “The content of the doctrine of justification by faith should be distinguished from its scope” (“Justified by Faith, Justified by His Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21–4:25, ” in D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark Seifrid, eds., Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004], 156). Membership in God’s people and justification are closely related, but they are not identical. The former is penultimate; the latter, ultimate.
13. The transformative power of justification is an important part of Ernst Käsemann’s famous definition of “God’s righteousness” in terms of both gift and power (see, for example, “The Righteousness of God in Paul,” in New Testament Questions of Today [London: SCM, 1969], 168–82) and has been taken up by his followers: see, for example, P. Stuhlmacher: “the justification of which he speaks is a process of becoming new that spans the earthly life of a believer, a path from faith’s beginning to its end” (emphasis original; “The Apostle Paul’s View of Righteousness,” in Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], 72; see also idem, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2: Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005], 332–34). A broad understanding of justification as including both forensic and transformative aspects was widespread before the Reformation (for example, in Augustine). Such a view was hinted at in the work of Adolph Schlatter (for example, The Theology of the Apostles [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999, 248–50]) and is becoming widespread in current scholarship (for example, Eberhard Jüngel, Justification: The Heart of the Christian Faith. A Theological Study with Ecumenical Purpose [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2001], 208–11; Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 48–57; Peter J. Leithart, Delivered from the Elements of the World: Atonement, Justification, Mission [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016], 179–214).
14. Michael J. Gorman, Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 228.
15. Gorman, Becoming the Gospel, 223.
16. See again here Gorman, Becoming the Gospel, 234–40 (on 1 Cor 6).
17. As H. Blocher puts it, “The judge’s verdict does change the real situation—in the forensic sphere” (“Justification of the Ungodly (Sola Fide): Theological Reflections,” in Carson, O’Brien, and Seifrid, eds., The Paradoxes of Paul, 494).
18. William B. Evans has recently surveyed some of the ways that union with Christ and justification are related in historical and contemporary reformed theology (“Déjà Vu All over Again? The Contemporary Reformed Soteriological Controversy in Historical Perspective,” Westminster Theological Journal 72 [2010]: 135–51).
19. See Chee-Chiew Lee, “The Blessing of Abraham and the Promise of the Spirit: The Influence of the Prophets on Paul in Galatians 3:1–14” (PhD diss., Wheaton College, 2009), especially 312–13.
20. See especially Ralph P. Martin, Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989); Michael J. Gorman, “The Lord of Peace: Christ Our Peace in Pauline Theology,” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 3 (2013): 219–53; Gorman, Becoming the Gospel, 142–80; Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).
21. The word group occurs only six times. The two occurrences with a Hebrew original (Isa 9:4; Jer 31:39) are not relevant; only the four occurrences in 2 Maccabees (1:5; 5:20; 7:33; 8:29) refer to reconciliation.
22. See especially Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).
23. For the former, see, for example, Brant Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 407.
24. See especially David Hill, Greek Words with Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 5 (Cambridge: University Press, 1967), 58–80.
25. See the classic study by Leon Morris: The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 9–59. Morris might, however overplay the “price paid” aspect of the word group. Note in this respect I. Howard Marshall’s distinction between “price” and “cost” (“The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New Testament,” in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on His 60th Birthday, ed. R. Banks [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 153). See also, along similar lines, Hermann Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 194–97.
26. See, for example, James D. G. Dunn, A Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 228.
27. Ridderbos notes the family resemblance among these terms (Paul, 193).
28. As Morris notes, Paul prefers to present Christ’s work in more positive terms (Leon Morris, “Forgiveness,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993], 311).
29. Some scholars have appropriated the important Eastern Orthodox idea of theosis to refer to this focus on being made like God or Christ (for example, Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009]). However, whatever the merits of the idea, the term theosis may import too much extraneous theological baggage into Paul’s theology (Gösta Hallonsten, “Theosis in Recent Research: A Renewal of Interest and a Need for Clarity,” in Partakers in the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, ed. Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung [Cranbury, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2007], 281–93; compare Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004]).