Stellvertreter: Vicarious Substitution

1. Preliminary remarks

1.1. On the problem of using the expression

An article on the concept of substitution in biblical texts must confront the challenge that the
abstract verbal noun "substitution" is not found in either the Old or New Testament. The term
was first coined by the mediating theologian Siegmund Baumgarten, who wrote at the beginning
of the 17th century. Baumgarten speaks of the substitution or replacement of the passage,
translating the Latin terms "vicaria substitutio" and "vicaria subrogatio" with these phrases. He
was inspired to do so by his engagement with the work of Johann Andreas Quenstedt, a classic
figure in Lutheran orthodoxy, who used the term "subrogatio" in a terminologically reflective
manner. Quenstedt, in turn, had become aware of this term through the controversy between the
Lutheran Abraham Calov and the Socinian Johann Crell. Crell, however, had been critically
trained by Hugo Grotius, who distinguished himself through his idiosyncratic yet intensive
commentary on biblical texts. This reference to the history of the use of the verbal noun
"vicarious representation" in theology is important because this history is linked to a difficult
departure from the concept of satisfaction, which is also fundamentally alien to the biblical texts.
The moment one can speak not merely of vicarious satisfaction, but of the representation of Jesus
Christ, this departure from the doctrine of satisfaction is, at least conceptually, complete.

The semantics of the term "substitution" are, however, even more complex than just outlined. A
multitude of different connotations are involved. Not only the semantics of subrogatio, but also
of a total of six precursor terms are significant. All of these precursor terms were understood as
translation equivalents, as 18th-century lexicography shows: repraesentatio (representation with
the secondary meaning that someone is present in another in a concentrated way), sub(r)rogatio
(sublimating, originally equivalent replacement), substitutio (subsequent replacement), vicariatio
(representation by a subordinate), locumtenentia (placeholdership), and procuratio (caring,
advocacy-like representation). In the broadest sense, intercessio can also be considered a
precursor term. However, intercessio is associated with a person stepping in from a higher
position to fill the gap for another person. However, she does not take the place of another
person, but rather acts between two people to resolve a conflict.
Given this Latin prehistory—Greek precursors for the abstract noun, such as antiprosopoiosis ,
are merely later, artificial terms coined in modern scholarly texts—it is always advisable to
specify precisely what is meant when the expression "representation" is used. Representation is
not always the same. The brief overviews of the uses of verb and prepositional phrases in the Old
and New Testaments below will further support this statement.

1.2. Inclusive and exclusive representation

In dogmatic literature, as in exegetical literature, it is very popular to distinguish between

inclusive and exclusive representation. Inclusive representation means that the person being
represented is involved in the representation process in some particularly significant way.
Exclusive representation, on the other hand, means that the represented person is excluded from
the representation process. However, this distinction is fraught with problems. Either the
semantics of representation are abandoned, or only trivialities are addressed. If exclusion is
strongly emphasized, then one is no longer dealing with representation, but rather with
substitution. If inclusion is strongly emphasized, representation shifts towards a friendly act of
solidarity (Röhser, 2002, suggests this). Trivially speaking, every representation process is
always characterized by both an inclusive and an exclusive element. A key aspect of the concept
of representation is that the represented person is both inclusively included in the representation
process and exclusively excluded. If they were not included, the act of representation could have
no effect on them whatsoever. If they were not excluded, they could act directly, and the concept
of representation would be meaningless.

1.3. Existential representation and situational representation

It is often argued that representation in a theological context should be understood as existential

representation. It is not about a person being represented with regard to a bothersome task they
would otherwise have to handle themselves. Rather, it refers to a process in which they
themselves, as a person, are represented in their entirety. For it concerns the representation of
highly personal → guilt.I am selfless, mindful of my fellow human beings, and mindful of God .I
remained indebted and thus made myself guilty. That representation in these highly personal
dimensions is actually an impossibility was already established by Immanuel Kant in his treatise
on religion. This discovery, however, is not new. The medieval Bolognese School of Law
explicitly stated that representation in existential matters is not possible. In essence, the → New
Testament sees it the same [Link] is no different. This very possibility, asserted according to
human and worldly standards, is realized in the word of the cross, which is why it must remain
folly in the eyes of the wisdom of this world.

Christian theology thus faces the challenge, recognized quite early in the history of theology, of
asserting and formulating something that is inconceivable in worldly contexts. Accepting this
challenge, however, requires key biblical texts.

Indeed, one of the crucial points of the substitutionary motif in central soteriological texts of the
Old and New Testaments is that it concerns the intervention of one entity in the situation or
existence of another. This distinguishes it from the motif of satisfaction (satisfactio), long
favored in the history of theology, which asserts a quantitative compensation for debts. In
contrast, the intervention that liberates life from existential guilt and transgression is not about
something being paid for or settled, but rather about someone taking the place of someone else.
Thus, the substitutionary motif represents a clear alternative to a "legal-mercantile substitutionist
thinking."

1.4. Limiting the scope of the following observations on biblical texts

The following observations focus on the interpretation of the theological doctrine of salvation in
the New and Old Testaments. Other contexts in which the motif of substitution is alluded to,
such as the position of religious professions or the discussion of fundamental anthropological
statements, etc., recede into the background. Exemplary evidence is provided to demonstrate
where the motif of substitution, rather than the concept of substitution itself, suggests itself as a
key interpretive criterion.

2. Biblical Motives for Substitution

2.1. Old Testament

2.1.1. Verb usages

In the Old Testament, the motif of substitution appears in verb usages such as:

 “to stand before the Lord” ( Jeremiah 15:1).19Jeremiah 18:20);

  “pray/ask for” ( 2 Kings 19:4); Isaiah 37:4Jeremiah 7:16Jeremiah 11:14);

 “To intercede” ( Exodus 8:4).25; Ex 9:28; Ex 10:17etc.);

 “to stand up for” ( Ps 94:16));

 “to intercede for/to plead with” ( Jeremiah

7:16)Jeremiah 27:18Jeremiah 15:11Jeremiah 36:25);

 “Give ransom for” ( Exodus 21:30); Num 35:31f.);

 “to stand up/enter, to step into the breach, to fill the crack” ( Ps 106:23).30; Ez
22,30Sirach 45:23);

 “Being an advocate for” ( 1 Samuel 2:25); Ezekiel 16:52Psalm 106 : 30; Gen 20:7)

2.1.2. Prepositional phrases

Two prepositional phrases in particular should be mentioned here, namely baal : “protecting in
order for/in favor of or for” ( Ex 8:24 ).) and secondly tachat “that which is below” in the sense
of “instead”, prominently in the talion formula of Ex 21:23An eye for an eye (etc.).

2.1.3. Overview of the motif of substitution in the Old Testament

It is often claimed that the motif of representation is anthropologically present in the creation
narrative. The meaning of this passage would then be as follows: Humankind, created in the
image of God, is to "rule" over birds, cattle, and reptiles. They are to do this on God's behalf.
Significantly, however, the text lacks a direct terminological reference. It is important to consider
that a creation in which humankind ruled instead of God would be a creation without God and a
desolate world. The Old Testament, however, does not envision such a desolate world. If
anything, the motif of representation must be understood in terms of representation, specifically
in such a way that the represented becomes personally present in a concentrated form through the
actions of the representative (Janowski, 2006, 60f. interprets it in this way; von Rad, 1987, 39,
disagrees).

The motif of representation is much more clearly encountered in the following contexts:
The motive lies in the conception of the → kingas representatives or mediators of God ( Jer
26:19)Psalm 72).

The motif is present, in a limited sense, where → prophetsacting intercessively as those who
intercede for Israel ( Exodus 32:7-14 ).30-34Jeremiah 15 : 10-20).

In Lev 1The → sacrificial animalsacrificed in place of the sacrificing lord.

In Lev 16The scapegoat is introduced as a living being that, in the sense of transferring guilt,
ritually bears misfortune in place of others ( Leviticus 16:20-22).) and removed from the social
context.

In Isaiah 52The righteous servant of God suffersin the place of the unrighteous ( Isaiah 52:13-
53:12)).

The last two texts mentioned are of particular interest.

2.1.4. Leviticus 16 and the figure of the scapegoat ritual

The one in Leviticus 16:20-22described by → AaronThe scapegoating ritual originated in

southeastern Anatolia and northern Syria and spread from there, primarily to Syria-Palestine and
the ancient Mediterranean region. This ritual employed spatial distancing. Guilt or
→ impurityThe guilt is eliminated by being removed from the person's environment. This
requires a medium through which the guilt can be carried away – away to the desert or abroad.
Religious studies therefore refers to this as an "elimination rite."

The underlying idea is that guilt burdens the guilty party. He can bear it himself, or another
entity can bear it. The burden of guilt is now discussed in Leviticus [Link] a ritual gesture
(placing the hand on an animal's head), linked to a speech act (confession of guilt), the guilt is
transferred to a goat. In a second act, the animal is sent into the desert. Thus, the goat becomes a
guilt-eliminating beast of burden.

That this rite, linked to the theme of substitution, is of central importance is evident from its
position in the ritual sequence of devotional practices throughout the year. It forms the ultimate
ritual conclusion of the great Day of Atonement, which is meant to purify priests, people, and the
sanctuary. The function of this rite is as follows: While guilt is carried off into the desert, a place
of destructive chaos, along with the goat, Israel can gradually approach the sanctuary again as
the site of God's creative microcosm (cf. Rudman, 2004, 398 with Janowski, 2006, 65f.).

That, in the same context, before the described rite of elimination, Aaron offers a sacrifice of
atonement by a bull “for himself and his household” at the Capporaet (atonement) ( Leviticus
16:11-17) .), is a figure interpreted intensively, especially by Hartmut Gese, under the heading of
"atonement," which then appears in the context of the substitutionary motif in the New
Testament, namely in Romans 3:25becomes important.

One of the crucial differences between the Old Testament rites and the interpretation of Jesus'
crucifixion within a corresponding historical context lies in the fact that the sacrifice can never
be repeated. Christ was uniquely and definitively "placed" by God as the site of atonement. The
atonement cult in the → Templehas been definitively superseded by this event ( Romans 3:25)).

2.1.5. The fourth Servant Song

The fourth Servant Song is central to understanding what recent exegetical literature describes as
"existential substitutionary guilt." It likely differs from the one in Leviticus 16 in that it focuses
on the concept of "existential substitutionary guilt."The described elimination rite is based on a
so-called "substitution rite," which originates in a very different context in the Mesopotamian
"replacement king rite" (cf. Janowski, 2000, 212f. with Maul, 1994, 509). It is important to note
that the "biblical experience of guilt, in which the theological problem of substitution arises, ...
according to biblical conviction, is not so much" based on a conflict "played out within the
subject, but rather" on the "distress" of "not knowing what to do next on one's own" (Janowski,
2006, 47). It is also important to note that the passage in Isaiah 53The described situation need
not necessarily be interpreted as a process of cultic atonement (Janowski, 1997, 67ff., disputes
the relevance of the concept of cultic atonement. Authors such as Stuhlmacher, 1992, 193f.,
consider it a compelling interpretation). Four aspects are crucial:

The Servant Song asserts, firstly, that the servant suffered because of someone else's actions, not
his own: "pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities" (53:5a). A central condition
of representation is a connection between the one interceding and those for whom he intercedes.
This connection only becomes apparent to those for whom intercession is made after the fact.
Secondly, a special kind of representational relationship is formulated: “Our diseases—he bore
them. Our sorrows—he carried them” (53:4b). This means that in the one servant of God, the
sorrows and sickness of the many are present. This representation is of a special kind insofar as
those represented are substituted out of the act of representation. He alone, and not they, must
endure this sickness. He does not suffer in such a way that all those represented by him would
have to suffer.

Thirdly, God uses the life of the Servant as an "asham." This means that God, so to speak, places
the Servant in a position of obligation. One can speak here of a role reversal. There is a kind of
double substitution. The Servant is substituted for those who are represented. And those for
whom the Servant intercedes are substituted for the place where he would normally stand as the
righteous one.

Fourth, it is crucial that God initiates and acknowledges this role reversal. God, therefore, is the
one who helps those being represented in this way out of a situation from which they cannot
extricate themselves on their own. These points are invoked in a New Testament text of similar
central importance for the interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion: 2 Corinthians 5:14–6:2(see below
[Link]).

2.2. New Testament

2.2.1. Verbal uses

In the New Testament, the motif of substitution appears in connection with verbal expressions
using the prepositions anti, dia, peri, and hyper . The question of whether a vicarious
connotation truly exists must be examined very carefully, especially in cases where the
prepositions dia , peri , and hyper are used, because in these instances the meaning of the
corresponding expressions could simply be that something is done for or on behalf of someone
for a specific reason, without necessarily taking that person's place. That's one point. The other is
that, for example, strict messenger relationships should not be interpreted as relationships of
substitution due to terminological clarity. The person representing the person in the position,
unlike the messenger, has certain leeway in their actions and in terms of suffering.

2.2.2. Nominal phrases

It remains controversial whether exchange relationships indicated by nouns should already be
negotiated under the heading of representation, although some exegetes maintain that this is
clearly the case (cf. Janowski, 2006, 50). For example, in Mark 8:37par. Mt 16:26When the term
an antallagma is used, it refers to a medium of exchange. However, the metaphor of a medium of
exchange is a quantitative one, allowing for a certain externalizing, objective interpretation. This
does not lead to the motif of substitution, but rather away from it. The same applies to the
noun antilytron , which is generally translated rather inaccurately as "ransom." The translation
"ransom," however, leads even further away from the substitutionary connotation, which is only
latently present through the prefix anti-, than the Greek original, which at least allows for a
substitutionary secondary meaning in the prepositional prefix anti . However, anti here can
simply be understood in the sense of compensation (or payment). Mark 10:45 is correspondingly
reserved in its [Link] 20,28 to be interpreted, where it is said that the → “Son of
Man”He came to give his life as a ransom for many. Frey, for example, judges differently
(interpretation, 117), noting that Mark 10:45"essential aspects of an exclusionary representation"
is noted, while Mk 14:24with the figure of the “blood of the covenant” “the idea of
representation – equally universally extended – more inclusive, in the sense of the compassion of
dying”.

2.2.3. Old Testament or pagan roots of the substitutionary motif in the New Testament

It is disputed whether the aforementioned Old Testament texts are essential for the allusion to the
motif of substitution (as argued, for example, by Frey, Deutung, p. 120) or whether pagan
sources of inspiration are guiding such turns of phrase, sources that address the theme of a
person's death for their polis, the laws, their friends, and so on (as argued, for example, by
Versnel, Jesus Soter). In the latter case, these turns of phrase would owe their existence, not
least, to Hellenistic ethics of friendship, which are situated within the context of addressing
injustice and [Link] projected (as Breytenbach, ‘Christ died for us’, 93). One might, and this is
certainly true, judge that “for both Jewish and pagan people of the 1st century, the idea that a
person dies for the benefit of others was not fundamentally foreign” (cf. Bendlin, In Place; with
Schröter, Dying, 284). However, this does not clarify whether this death for the benefit of
another is already a vicarious death, nor does it clarify the religious-historical spirit to which the
motif of substitution in the New Testament belongs. This can, with some probability, only be
clarified by examining the respective passage and asking the following question: How
unambiguously is a particular motivational situation adopted—perhaps even down to the
terminology?

2.2.4. Motifs of representation in pre-Pauline early Christian formula tradition

It must also remain controversial whether phrases containing the motif of substitution can be
found in pre-Pauline early Christian formula tradition (see, for example, Frey, 2006, 96-107).

This is not so easy to decide because, for example, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5The phrase "that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" certainly refers to the self-sacrifice of Jesus
Christ in favor of the highly personal failings of one's own life and personal determination, as
described by → [Link] claim is made with the people mentioned as "us." But the figure of
speech does not explicitly state that he died in place of us sinners. After all, a person cannot take
the place of sins. To assert this, even with imaginative interpretation, leads into extremely
difficult semantic territory. The same applies to the prescript of the Epistle to the Galatians ( Gal
1:4) .), where it says that → ChristI gave myself up for our sins. A similar point applies to the
formula that Christ was given up for our transgressions ( Romans 4:25) .Here the reason for the
→ death of Christ is [Link] stated. There can be no question of representation.

Whether a vicarious element was implied in the interpretation of the death of Jesus Christ is, of
course, not to be ruled out. The wording alludes to Isaiah [Link] is indeed connected to an explicit
terminological figure. The same applies to the hyper -meaning of the word "bread," for which no
clearly representative secondary meaning can be identified. It could perhaps be that the meaning
is that the body, rather than our body, was given up. However, this cannot be definitively
determined from considering these passages alone.

Much the same applies to the passage in Romans 3:25The figure in question suggests that Christ
was "placed" as a hilasterion , that is, a place of atonement. An explicit terminological reference
to the motif of substitution is lacking. However, a corresponding intention cannot be ruled out.
This is much clearer in the following passages of Pauline soteriology.

2.2.5. The motif of substitution in Pauline soteriology

It is far more likely that Paul himself's interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' death on the cross
incorporates the motif of substitution. He connects the relevant prepositions, especially the
preposition hyper, with a personal authority. In this context, Christ, or rather God, is the subject
of the event. Christ died, was crucified, or gave himself up, etc., "for us (all)" ( 1 Thessalonians
5:10).Romans 5 : 8Romans 8:32), “for all” ( 2 Corinthians 5:14), “for the ungodly” ( Romans
5:6), “for the brother” ( 1 Corinthians 8:11)Romans 14:15) or “for me” ( Gal 2:20The key points
of Paul's statements will be illustrated by two examples, Romans 5:7-9 .and 2 Corinthians 5:14-
21.

[Link]. The motif of substitution in 2 Corinthians 5:14-21

Paul explains in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15.17A passage of central importance. It cleverly

incorporates interpretive patterns from the fourth Servant Song, transforming them to interpret
the singular event of Christ's death on the cross. The central idea is immediately apparent: "One
died for all, therefore all died." Christ's death is not conceived here as a substitution. For then
those for whom Christ died would not have to die. They are, as Paul asserts. Verse 15 clarifies
that the consequence of Christ's intercession is the ability to live for another. Verses 16 and 17
unfold what this means. It is the life perspective of faith., which fundamentally changes a
person's way of life and their perspective on understanding. Christ's intervention is
simultaneously interpreted within the context of the creation motif. Verse 18 deepens this insight
by interpreting God as the originator of the entire process of Christ's intervention, culminating in
human faith, under the heading of "reconciliation." Verse 20 reinforces this by clearly using the
aorist passive . The believer never ratifies (as some, even systematic, interpretations claim) a
vicarious intercession by Jesus Christ on their behalf. Rather, they already find themselves
reconciled. This is confirmed by looking at the central verse 21, which cleverly links the
exchange of roles between Christ and those for whom he intercedes with creation terminology.
God "makes"—that is, his creative act—the one who knew no sin into sin, meaning a sinner, so
that "we" in him may become "righteousness," meaning righteous people. The fact that the term
"representation" is only used with limited justification for this exchange of roles urgently needs
to be discussed (cf. Schaede, Aufgabe, 144-146). Furthermore, for a proper theological
classification of this text, it is important to recognize that this Pauline passage does not
necessarily allude to the motif of atonement; that is, Paul can conceive of the intercession of
Jesus Christ even without the idea of the atoning sacrifice (cf. Frey, 2006, 110 with Breytenbach,
2003).

[Link]. The motif of substitution in Romans 5:7-9

Even though Paul interprets the coming of Jesus Christ without the atonement motif, he refers to
this motif, as already stated in Romans 3:[Link] shows that there is no distance involved. Also
in 2 Corinthians 5:9He clearly alludes to this motif when he suggests that "we" are "justified by
his blood." This reference indicates something other than his manner of death, which is precisely
what Romans 3:24-25 suggests....and the semantic context makes this likely. The "blood"
justifies and protects from God's wrath. It is clear that the figure of atonement is used in a
transformative way to interpret a unique and unrepeatable event. The transformation is
remarkable: Firstly, the atonement was instituted by God in the Old Testament and was therefore
never a gift from humankind to God. However, it was designed for repetition. Secondly, the
attitude of faith preceded the sacrificial act, whereas here it can only follow, as a life-shaping
force creatively brought about by this act. Christ died while we were still sinners (v. 8). Thirdly,
the text no longer speaks of a sacrificial animal. Rather, it is God himself, who was in Christ,
who overcomes guilt through his life, "through the fate of death" (cf. Gese, 1989).

At this point it becomes clearly evident that Paul's interpretation of the crucifixion is not in line
with a → Hellenistic [Link] an ethics of friendship. For at best, this would have been
good for the idea that a person dies not even for the sake of a righteous person, but for the sake
of a good person. Christ, however, dies for sinners, that is, for those who are explicitly not his
friends (v. 7) (Frey, 2006, 113; contra Breytenbach, 2003; Röhser, 2002, 93).

2.2.6. The motif of substitution in the Johannine interpretation of the death of Jesus Christ

The verbal phrases formulated with hyper in the → Corpus Johanneum formIs this a semantic
network that, in its context, is perceived in such a way that the overarching motif of
representation is present as an interpretation of the death of Jesus Christ? (as Frey, 2006, 118).
Or, in connection with a historically rather bold thesis, must it be asserted that the figure of a
"vicarious" (sacrificial) death was still unknown to the Johannine corpus (as Berger, 1997, 238)?
To clarify this question, we should consider phrases such as the one about the good shepherd
laying down his life for the sheep or for his friends ( John 10:11) ..15(cf. 10:17f. with 15:13) or
that Christ gives his “flesh… for the life of the world.” Finally, remarks such as his sanctifying
himself for his own (17:19), “for the people,” or his dying for the reunion of God’s scattered
children must be considered. Finally, reference has also been made to those “change of place
motifs” in which → Barabbasis released, but Jesus dies, → Lazarusis raised from the dead, but
Jesus goes to the cross ( John 11).).

First, it should be noted in light of these texts that nowhere in the Corpus Johanneum is there
explicit mention of atonement (cf. Schröter, 2000, 286f. with Frey, 2006, 118). Even the
passages where the → Passover lamb is mentionedThe passages in question do not permit us to
speak of atonement at this point. And it is also clear that, strictly speaking, the motif of
substitution is not explicitly stated in any of the passages mentioned, although such an allusion
cannot be ruled out. That the Gospel of John did indeed ascribe a subordinate meaning to
the hyper -phrases is particularly evident in the passage where Jesus speaks to
the disciple standing beneath the [Link] own place as the son of → Maryassigns ( John 19:25-
27)This is theologically similar to what Paul says in 2 Corinthians [Link].

2.3. Concluding remarks

Given the complex semantic situation of soteriological statements in the New Testament, it is
advisable to be very cautious with the overly emphatic use of the phrase "the" substitution.
Nevertheless, it can be said that, in various but quite clear ways, alludes to motifs of substitution.
In short, it is just as problematic to exclude the motif of substitution from the interpretation of
biblical texts as it is to claim it as a terminologically mature concept. The way in which the motif
is used testifies to apostolic wisdom in language use, since the explicit figure of substitution is
presumably more of a theological marker, more of an attempt to formulate a theological task: to
at least begin to understand how the death of Jesus is to be interpreted soteriologically within the
context of the New Testament.

Bibliography

1. Encyclopedia article
  J. Frey, Art. Substitution III: New Testament, Religion in History and the Present, 4th
ed., Vol. 7, Tübingen 2004, col. 1709f.

 B. Janowski, Art. Scapegoat, Religion in History and the Present, 4th ed., Vol. 7,
Tübingen 2004, col. 1902

 G. Lanczkowski, Art. Representation, Religion in History and the Present, 3rd ed., Vol. 6,
Tübingen 1962, col. 356f.

 M. Menke, Art. Stellvertretung I-IV, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 3rd ed., Vol. 9,
Freiburg 2000, col. 951-956

 G. Röhser, Art. Representation IV. New Testament, Theological Real Encyclopedia, Vol.
32, 2001, pp. 140-145

2. Monographs and essays

 A. Bendlin, Dying in place of others. On the diversity of meaning of a model in Greek

and Roman religion, in: Representation, ed. by J.C. Janowski et al., Neukirchen-Vluyn
2006, pp. 9–41

 K. Berger, In the Beginning Was John, Stuttgart 1997

 C. Breytenbach, ‘Christ died for us’. On the tradition and Pauline reception of the so-
called ‘death formulas’, NTS 49/2003, pp. 447-475

 J.G. Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study of Magic and Religion, Cologne/Berlin 1968

 J. Frey, The Interpretation of Jesus' Death as Vicarious Action, in: Vicarious Action, ed.
by JC Janowski et al., Neukirchen-Vluyn 2006, 87-121

 H. Gese, Atonement, in: idem, On Biblical Theology. Old Testament Lectures, 3rd
edition 1989, 85-106

 O. Hofius, “God has established among us a word of reconciliation” ( 2 Cor 5:19)), in:
idem, Paulusstudien, Tübingen 1989, pp. 15-31
 B. Janowski, Taking the place of another, in: Representation, ed. by JC Janowski et al.,
Neukirchen Vluyn 2006, pp. 43-68

 Ders., Deputy (SBS 165), Stuttgart 1997

 Idem, Atonement as a Salvation Event: Studies in the History of Tradition and Religion
on Priestly Atonement Theology, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2nd edition 2000

 St. Maul, Coping with the Future. An Investigation of Ancient Near Eastern Thought
Based on the Babylonian-Assyrian Liberation Rituals (Namburbi), Mainz 1994

 G. von Rad, The First Book of Moses/Genesis (ATD 2-4), Göttingen, 12th edition, 1987

 G. Röhser, Representation in the New Testament (SBS 195), Stuttgart 2002

 D. Rudman, A note on the Azazel goat ritual, ZAW 116/2004, pp. 396-401

 S. Schaede, Representation. Conceptual-historical studies on soteriology (BHTh 126),

Tübingen 2004

 J. Schröter (ed.), Interpretations of the Death of Jesus in the New Testament (WUNT
181), Tübingen 2005

 Idem, Dying for Friends: Reflections on the Interpretation of Jesus' Death in the Gospel
of John, in: A. v. Dobbeler et al., Religious History of the New Testament,
Tübingen/Basel 2000, pp. 263–288

 P. Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, Göttingen 1992

 H. Versnel, Jezus Soter – Neos Alkestis? About the neit-joodse Achterground van a
christelijke doctrine, Lampsas 22 /1989, pp. 219-242