Jesus Served Others To The Point Of Death—As An Example, Substitution, Or Both?

Bobby Grow, M.A.    May 2003

            Matthew 20:28 provides teaching that has been the point of much controversy. There is argument over what anti, should mean. Depending on the meaning of this word, there is support for the notion of Christ’s death as substitutionary for all men; or rather that Christ’s death was only “for the sake

of”—i.e. as an example for how others should live their lives before God.

            Therefore understanding the way this word can function will provide necessary insight on what position of the atonement this passage supports: substitution or example. Hence this study provides lexical analysis of anti,, as well as interaction with particular scholars; for the purpose of ascertaining the best reading of this word (i.e. anti,), and passage (i.e. Matt. 20:28).

Thesis Statement: Jesus’ ultimate gift of service was to provide comprehensive substitutionary atonement for all humanity.

Translation:

Just as the son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom in-the-stead of the many.  Matthew 20:28.

Observations:

            The broader context of Matt. 20:28 is found in the preceding verses 20-27. In vss. 20-23 the mother of James and John approaches Jesus and requests that her sons be allowed to sit and rule with Jesus in His coming kingdom. Verses 23-28 provide the response of the other ten disciples as they realize James and John are trying to get on the inside track of everyone else in the company of Jesus. Verse 28 is the climax of Jesus’ response back to the apostles, and what it means to be a true follower of Him.

            Lenski points out, in vs. 28, that Jesus’ attitude was not how much He could get (i.e. like the disciples were demonstrating, cf. vss. 20-24), but rather how much He could give for others (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 792). Thus the language of service and servant-hood (i.e. ouvk h-lqen diakonhqh/nai avlla. diakonh/sai) substantiates Jesus’ purpose for coming to earth. Many scholars agree up to this point (see Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 792; Leon Morris, The Gospel According To Matthew, 512-13; Robert Gundry, Matthew, 404; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8—20, 546).

            The difference arises after the epexegetical kai. (See Lenski, Matthew, 792) is given. Luz argues that the intent of the passage is only to highlight the example of service that Jesus provides for the disciples to follow. And that this passage does not heavily emphasize the idea of lu,tron (=ransom, BAG=price of release, the ransom money for the manumission of slaves, 483). Nor does this passage, according to Luz, emphasize avnti (=in the stead of or substitution, see lexical analysis provided later in this study). Note Luz:

            For Matthew the idea of a ransom or “substitute” is probably less

            important here than the radical nature of Jesus’ service. Jesus took

            his service to others so seriously that he gave his own life for “many.”

            (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8—20, 546).[1]

To the contrary many other scholars believe that this passage has everything to do with the notions of both ransom and substitution. The thought reflected is that luvtron and avnti explicitly point to the fact that Jesus truly served as the substitutionary ransom to the Father. And that this in fact serves to provide the substance for “what kind” of service Jesus came to provide. Note Blomberg’s comment as representative of this position:

            The word “ransom” (lytron) would make a first-century audience think

            of the price paid to buy a slave’s freedom. “Life” is the more correct

            translation here for psyche, which in other contexts sometimes means

            soul. Though it has been disputed, anti (“for”) means instead of or in

the place of. (Craig Blomberg, Matthew, 308; see also Leon Morris, Matthew, 512-13).

Therefore Blomberg represents this passage as a straightforward statement of Christ’s substitutionary atonement.

            Lenski similarly comes to the same conclusion as Blomberg, but he does not believe that avnti can be translated as “instead of,” rather he believes that contextually the relationship of the two substantives lu,tron and pollw/n point to the substitutionary understanding in this passage. Note Lenski:

            On the root idea of avnti.: “face to face,” . . . “The idea of ‘in the place of’

            or ‘instead’ comes where two substantives place opposite to each other

            are equivalent and so may be exchanged.”—thus the ransom is

            exchanged for the many. . . . “These important doctrinal passages teach

            the substitutionary conception of Christ’s death, not because of anti. of

            itself means ‘instead,’ which is not true, but because the context renders

            any other resultant idea out of the question.” . . . The efforts to overthrow

            these findings are to a great extent not exegetical but dogmatical . . . .

            (Lenski, Matthew, 794).

Thus Lenski provides nuanced argument, from the context, of how and why avnti. should be highlighting the substitutionary nature of Christ’s atonement. This is not in disagreement with Blomberg, but rather points out how the context, as a principle, determines the precise meaning of avnti..

Lexical Analysis of avnti.

Liddell and Scott, 153:

Liddell and Scott provide the semantic range from the classical perspective as:

            . . . of place, opposite, over against, formerly quoted from several places

            of Hom. . . . in Hom. often to denote equivalence . . . he is as good as

            many men . . . a guest is as much as a brother . . . to denote exchange,

            at the price, in return for . . . for money paid . . . in preference to . . . .

The classical meaning can carry the notion of in exchange or in return for. This provides legitimate semantic domain for the nuance of substitution as some argue for in Matthew 20:28’s usage of the word.

BAG, 72:

            Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich provide the semantic domain from the koine perspective:

            . . . in order to indicate that one person or thing is, or is to be, replaced

            by another instead of, in place of . . . in order to indicate that one thing is

            equiv. to another for, as, in place of . . . Gen. 44:33 shows how the mng.

            in place of can develop into in behalf of, for someone, so that av. becomes

            =u`pe,r . . . lu,tron av. pollw/n a ransom for many 20:28; Mk 10:45 . . . .

BAG substantiates the discussion provided by Lenski, that the two substantives, lytron and pollon in relationship with anti indeed provide this word with the notion of substitution.

Synthesis: Provided the two positions presented above (i.e. Luz and Blomberg/Lenski), and coupling these positions with the lexical analysis; it is the belief of this study that indeed 20:28 is explicitly discussing the substutionary nature of Christ’s ultimate service for humanity.

            Luz’s and the other scholar’s position, provided in footnote number one, show a position that is informed by a dogmatic theological position. And each of these scholars proceed to impose their dogmatism onto passages such as Matthew 20:28, thus producing an interpretation that fits their presupposed theological grid (i.e. Christ was only providing an “example” to follow, not the nature of the extent of His atonement).

            The plain reading of the passage is to recognize that indeed Christ is emphasizing service, but that that service is defined by His substitutionary atonement at the cross.    

Selected Bibliography

Bauer, W. A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament: And Other Early

        Christian Literature. Translated by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. Chicago:

        University Of Chicago Press, 1957.

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of

        Holy Scripture NIV Text. The New American Commentary, ed. David S.

        Dockery. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed

        Church under Persecution. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1994.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament.

        Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Ohio: The

        Wartburg Press, 1960.

Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Great Britain:

        Clarendon Press, 1968.

Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8—20. Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary

        on the Bible, ed. Helmut Koester. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans

        Publishing, 1995.

________. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Eerdmans Publishing, 1956.

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. USA: Victor Books, 1986.