The statement, "Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins" does not appear in the Bible. When in the history of Christian theology did this specific statement first appear? Who said it? Please provide the actual text (and source) from the writings of the Christian theologians or teachers who first said it—or at least, the earliest ones you can document. **If that is clear to you, there is no need to read the rest of this question.** *Please note:* - This question is specifically about the statement that Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins. Equivalent wordings, such as "Christ paid the *price* for our sins" or *"Jesus* paid the penalty for our sins," are on-topic. However, "Christ died for our sins" or "Christ suffered for our sins" or even "Christ was punished for our sins" are off-topic. I am looking for statements specifically about Christ *paying the penalty,* or *paying the price,* for our sins. - "Paying the price" in the context of Ransom Theory is also off-topic. A ransom is not a penalty or punishment for sin. - I am *not* looking for antecedents for this idea, nor am I looking for passages quoted as the biblical basis for this idea. I am looking for the earliest *explicit statements* of the idea itself. - For reference: the Wikipedia article on Penal Substitution . Please do not just quote from or refer to the Wikipedia article, which seems rather murky and disorganized. ***Edit** in response to comments:* My hypothesis is that the Penal Substitution theory of atonement is closely tied to the phrase "paid the penalty." This is a history of doctrine question rather than simply an English phrase question. However, it is common for proponents of Penal Substitution to see this theory of atonement in phrases representing ideas that are not necessarily the same. For example: - *"Christ died for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you and kills you, you have died for (due to) the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not *paid the penalty* for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. - *"Christ suffered for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you and injures you, you have suffered for the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not *paid the penalty* for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. - *"Christ was punished for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you, and you are wrongfully accused and put in jail instead of the drunk driver, you have *still* not paid the penalty for the drunk driver's sins. The drunk driver remains guilty of the crime, and subject to its penalty if and when it is discovered that there was a miscarriage of justice. Or if you were to voluntarily go to jail *with* the drunk driver, taking the same punishment even though you didn't commit the crime, you would still not have *paid the penalty* for the drunk driver's sins. S/he would *still* remain guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. The point is, every one of these statements can easily and very reasonably be read as meaning something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins. (And I happen to think that they *do* mean something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins.) That is why I am insisting on the precise language that most specifically expresses the Penal Substitution theory of atonement: that Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins. Protestant tracts are full of the statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins." That phrase is not in the Bible. It must have come from *somewhere.* I want to know where it came from. I suspect this will also provide the origin point of the Penal Substitution theory of atonement in the history of Christian doctrine. If none of that works for you, just repeat over and over again before writing an answer: **Where did the precise phrase "Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins" come from?**

I might be getting a bit pedantic, but when biblical scholars use the phrase "The 10 Lost Tribes" then isn't it a bit misleading? The reason being is that the biblical passage 2 Chronicles 11:16-17 does mention that some of the members of the 10 members of the Northern tribes of Israel do settle in the Southern Israelite Kingdom of Judah: > ( 2 Chronicles 11:16-17 ) > > "And those from all the tribes of Israel who set their hearts to seek > the Lord God of Israel came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord God > of their fathers. So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and made > Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong for three years, because they > walked in the way of David and Solomon for three years." Furthermore, Jeremiah 31 which was written long after the Northern Kingdom of Israel was taken into exile by the Assyrian kingdom does mention the Ephraim( representing all the 10 Northern Israelite tribes ) by emphasizing that God did Not forget Ephraim: > Jeremiah 31:20 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > 20 “Is Ephraim My dear son? Is he a delightful child? Indeed, as often > as I have spoken against him, I certainly still remember him; > Therefore My [a]heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on > him,” declares the Lord. Therefore, it might sound comical but isn't it more nuanced & better to use the phrase "members of the 10 Northern Tribes of Israel who went into oblivion or assimilation" as opposed to "the Ten Lost tribes" ?

At the end of the Gospel of Mark, the boy in the tomb tells the women to give a message to "[Jesus's] disciples AND Peter" (Mark 16:7). Nowhere else in Mark is any apostle "separated" from the word "disciples" and Peter, the "leader" of the disciples, is given second billing. What, if any, are the official church explanations for this unusual language?

Right now, I'm reading *When Heaven Invades Earth* by Bill Johnson. I just came across this sentence: "If I am filled with anxiety in any given situation, it becomes hard for me to release peace--because *I can only give what I have.*" (Emphasis mine.) The phrase by itself is a good and noteworthy one, but the reason I'm posting this question is that I've heard this phrase used before, spoken by Mike Cavanaugh. Both Bill Johnson and Mike Cavanaugh have done many great things by following the Lord, both are senior pastors, and both have used this phrase. This suggests to me that there's an earlier source that both have read and drawn from. Hence, I ask: does this earlier source exist, and if so, what is it? --- I kept reading and I came across "As glorious as the gift of tongues is, it is an entrance point to a lifestyle of power.", which is another thing Mike Cavanaugh said. The answer to this question may very well be a negative in that Mike may have drawn from this book, not an earlier source. If this is the case, an answer should show this.

The phrase "Word of God" or "Word of the Lord" and variants are commonly used (at least among evangelicals) to refer to the Bible - i.e. the written words of the prophets and apostles. I'm wondering what is the origin of this usage. These phrases appear frequently in the Bible itself, but never (as far as I'm aware) to unambiguously refer to the written Bible itself. For instance, throughout the prophets it is commonly written "the word of the Lord came to so and so," but this seems to refer to something prior to the actual writing down of the relevant books. In the NT we have for example the oft quoted Heb. 4:12 saying "The Word of God is living and active..." which is often taken as referring to the Scriptures, but this reading doesn't appear necessitated by the context unless we already take the phrase Word of God to mean this. In some cases, it unambiguously refers to something *not* the Bible, e.g. in John 1. To be clear, I am not asking about where the idea of divine inspiration of the Bible comes from. Rather, I am asking specifically about the origin of using the phrase "word of God" to refer to the Bible.

In the Old and the New Testament "peace be with you" was a common greeting among Jesus Christ and the prophets (Genesis 43:23, Judges 19:20, Luke 24:36, John 20:19) but was "peace be with you" a common greeting among the Early Church Fathers? **Genesis 43:23**: > And he said, Peace be to you, fear not: your God, and the God of your > father, hath given you treasure in your sacks: I had your money. And > he brought Simeon out unto them **Judges 19:20**: > And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants > lie upon me; only lodge not in the street. **Luke 24:36**: > And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and > saith unto them, Peace be unto you. **John 20:19**: > Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when > the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the > Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be > unto you.

***Kyrie Eleison*** is a term that is used in the Latin Mass of the Catholic Church. However, I've been told that the phrase is entirely Greek and not Latin at all! So is the phrase Latin or Greek? Is it transliterated from Greek and therefore Latin?

A previous question of mine, "What is the biblical basis for the belief that good works are the fruits of faith? " provides examples of Protestant faith statements using the formula, "good works are the fruits of faith," and asks for the biblical basis of that belief. The answers to that question so far have confirmed my initial thought that the Bible does not say in plain words that good works are the fruits of faith, but that this formula derives from interpretation of various biblical statements. Here, then, is a follow-up question: Where in Christian history did the saying, "Good works are the fruits of faith," originate? What theologian or Christian doctrinal statement first used it? Did it originate among Protestant theologians, or was it already in existence in Christian writings prior to the Protestant Reformation? (*Note:* For the purposes of this question, statements that use close synonyms for or variants of "good works" and "faith" are acceptable, as are statements that use a different word order, and so on, as long as it is basically the same statement. However, I am specifically **not** asking for statements that good works are the fruits or result of *salvation,* or of *love for God,* or of *God working within a person,* and so on—**even if these things are seen as happening through or from or as a result of faith**—or of anything else that isn't precisely *faith* as that is understood within historical or Protestant Christianity. I am looking for the first use within Christian history of the formula, "Good works are the fruits of faith.")

I was recently spending some thought on this topic which came from this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35105/to-most-protestants-what-is-the-understanding-of-luke-148-kjv I answered the question and proposed as an afterthought that people cynical of Catholic Tradition would quickly dismiss the significance that Mary is called blessed as a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not sure yet how this might help that argument either way, but what is the earliest instance (outside of Luke's gospel) of Mary being called "Blessed Virgin" or some variation involving the word "blessed"? Since the Lucan story specifically states that "**all** generations will call me blessed", I don't want a quote from Luke or any work that just retells the story. I mean any works from later writers that explicitly call Mary "blessed"; that is, examples of further generations calling Mary blessed. If it so happens that such statements evolved to their current state I would like to see a few examples showing that evolution.

Just in the past few months, I've been coming across the word *bible* as a lowercase word. I'm not talking about the word as used in, say, "the fisherman's bible," or such similar uses; rather, the appearance of the word when it clearly refers to the *Holy Bible*, as in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. As a lifelong Christian, I am somewhat concerned (assuming tentatively there *is* a trend) that the use of the word *bible*, when referring to the Holy Bible, may be related to a general devaluing of this traditionally sacred book. My question, then: "Is there a trend toward replacing the capital B in Bible with a lowercase b?" And are there statistics or facts to support this notion? *(Meaning, is there data that supports the statement that this is a trend that's actually occurring, as opposed to my own perception?)*

This is not a question about the meaning (self-explanatory) of the expression, but on **its origin**. In particular, about **who, where, and when**. There seems to be nothing about this around. The New Testament does not mention these words. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper#Terminology) offers no work on its origin, and I find no online answer for this.

I get that "Bema" is the Greek word translated "judgment seat" in the NT. But how did the term "Bema Seat" come to be used? It's a little redundant, like saying "PIN number", but catchy. I'd just like to know how it caught on. Who first said, "We're going to call this not-White-throne judgment the bema-seat judgment"?

Recently, I've been racked at the possible ways this belief might be construed when someone says it. I suspect that the primary Biblical basis for it is John 1, but as we know, there can be many interpretations for just a single verse, depending on your assumptions and starting points. So when a Christian says "Jesus is the Word", what is an overview of the various beliefs that this Christian may ascribe to? --- NOTE: I do not want to focus on general christological overviews. I realize this question is indeed a christology question, but I want to be sure that answers focus exclusively on what Christians mean when they say this phrase and how that relates to their theological perspective (which you don't have to explain, just name).

This is a popular saying in Christian circles at funerals or when a person has recently died. Is there a biblical basis for this phrase?

The quote **"We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone"** is commonly attributed to Martin Luther, but is this actually so? If so, in what context did he say or write this? If not, who first used this particular formulation (equivalent semantics if not exactly equivalent words)?

The phrase "an over-realized eschatology" seems to get a run from time to time in theological discussions (example ) or blog posts (example ). Who first coined this phrase* and in what context were they using it? In my own research, it appears that C.H. Dodd promoted a "realized eschatology ". Was "over-realized eschatology" coined in the context of a critique of Dodd's eschatology? *or semantic equivalent if its first appearance in English was a translation.

Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley and other Great Awakening writers often use the expression "swallowed up in God". It also appears in the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux. Does it have a scriptural or other early origin?

"God wants the best for us" is a common phrase by Christians, but I struggle to identify with it. From the scriptures, I learned that what God gives us is good enough. I don't think it needs to be the 'best'. I feel that too many Christians are taking the word best too literally. They believe that there is only one best option that God would provide. Some churches extend the thought and only purchase the most expensive sound equipment or acquire the most expensive buildings because they feel God would give them the best. So I'm asking for biblical references to support the phrase, "God wants the best for us".

The phrase is used during the ceremony of assigning a new pope, and can be interpreted in many ways. A translation would be: "So pass the worldly glories." How would you interpret its meaning, think of its context being used in Christianity and, possibly, some esoteric circles as well? To clarify, I know the translation and the instance in which it is used. What I'm looking for is if there is some contextual knowledge that would add to the *symbolic*, *historical* or *ethical* meaning of it.

Twice in the bible, God makes reference to "seventy times seven" (or "seventy-seven times"). Once in [Genesis 4:24](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+4:24&version=NIV) (dealing with Cain's punishment for his murder of Abel), and the other in [Matthew 18:22](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:22&version=NIV) (in an answer to Peter's question of how many times he should forgive a brother or sister that sins against him). Is there any significance to this phrase, and if so, what?