"Christ is punished instead of us"

[isshinwhat]

That is exactly what this person thinks happened on the cross, that God forsaked Christ and Christ went to hell and was judged righteous and was risen because of that.

My Aunt wanted me to read a book by Max Lucado during one Christmas break. While thumbing through through the beginning of the book, it said something like, "and the Earth cried out as what had always been one was separated through sin..." I stopped reading it right there. How can anyone believe God literally abandoned Christ? I cannot fathom it...

Mel Gibson’s movie which revolves around the final hours of our Saviour, is a total deviation from the Faith of the Church which holds the Holy Cross as the symbol of our Lord’s victory over death.

I guess I just don't understand why he feels this way. "By His wounds, we have been healed." The Passion was a necessary part of God's plan. I feel that many have gone too far in the opposite direction in order to counteract what they see as Gibson's over-concentration on the Passion of Christ.

Gibson’s film details the last 12 hours of the Lord’s life in excruciatingly violent images. The Passion of our Lord is separated from the Birth, Life, Resurrection and Glorification of our Saviour.

I fail how a movie which flashes back to His early chilhood, shows Christ's strong ties to His mother, and clearly, simply, and beautifully demonstrates the Resurrection does any of the above. The film clearly shows that Christ's death was His voluntarily giving His life that we might be saved through His overcoming death.

The Glory of the Cross was replaced by the Theology of punishment, satisfaction, merits and indulgences.

Gibson’s movie presents the blasphemous portrayal of the Lord not as the Victor but as the victim. The depiction of our Saviour as a man abandoned by God denies the Divinity of the Son of God and the true meaning of the Holy Cross.

Honestly, where is he coming from here? The Lord was a victim, but He was also the victor. If He were not made to be a victim for us, there would be no victory. "...we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Cor 1:23). I have seen that the same is true today. We who desire "to know nothing... except Jesus Christ and him crucified" still see that the Cross is an embarassment to many (1 Cor 2:1-3). It is human nature to look to the end and forget the road traveled to get there, but we cannot forget that is what the Crucifixion is about. That is what the Eucharist is. By becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4) are enabled to make up "in [our] flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church" ( Col. 1:24). We become "living sacrifices," and indeed that is what Christ was on the Cross. Through His life, death, and glourious Resurrection, He gave us a share in His life. A study on the Passion is a study of the road Christ took for our salvation, and indeed, the period of time depicted in "The Passion of the Christ" is the Crossroads of all our lives. It depicts where we all come together as we participate in the Eucharist, the cornerstone of our faith. God bless Mel Gibson for sharing his faith.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[Patristic]

The idea that the Levitical sacrifices took a punishment for us was completely alien to Jewish thought of the time. The OT sacrifices were a means of reconciliation and the theology behind it is pretty complicated. In fact most scholars today are still not completely sure as to what the many various sacrifices actually meant. The most dominant theme seems to be purification and identification. Which is most dominant as well in the NT especially Hebrews. I would never deny "the sacrificial and priestly nature of Christ's death where His blood covers our sins" present in Hebrews I just dont see a legal or penal edge to it

Greetings, I wasn't trying to argue for a penal component to the atonement. I posted a bit later saying the whole idea that Christ bore God's punishment is just as ludicrous as arguing for the idea that God punished the goats and bulls offered in the Levitical sacrifices. I do think there is a slight reference to the substitional nature of Christ's death hinted at in the OT Levitical laws though. The whole ceremony of sacrificing the unblemished lamb for the forgiveness of sins, while letting the scapegoat go free is a similar theme. I can't remember where I read it, but one of the early Church Fathers spoke of Barabbas as the passover scapegoat, while Jesus was the unblemished lamb.

 

[Benedicta00]

Oblio

"If the Crucifixion was the only means God could find to redeem us, then he must be limited in his power and wisdom....God is God, and his wisdom and might know no bounds. Of course he could have found another way to save us." This might sounds logical on the surface, but in fact this oversimplification ignores another of God's infinite attributes, which is his justice, and justice says, "You don't accept apples when oranges are due." What is the penalty for sin? Death and separation from God. What must the sinless substitute experience to satisfy justice? Death and separation from God. Thus, Christ's death and separation from God on the cross were absolutely necessary for the accomplishment of our salvation.

This is the quote from the bishop. I know it is out of context but this is all that was provided.

 

[countrymousenc]

Question:

According to Orthodoxy, was the Passover lamb a prototype of Christ?

 

[TWells]

Yes

 

[TWells]

My Aunt wanted me to read a book by Max Lucado during one Christmas break. While thumbing through through the beginning of the book, it said something like, "and the Earth cried out as what had always been one was separated through sin..." I stopped reading it right there. How can anyone believe God literally abandoned Christ? I cannot fathom it...



I guess I just don't understand why he feels this way. "By His wounds, we have been healed." The Passion was a necessary part of God's plan. I feel that many have gone too far in the opposite direction in order to counteract what they see as Gibson's over-concentration on the Passion of Christ.



I fail how a movie which flashes back to His early chilhood, shows Christ's strong ties to His mother, and clearly, simply, and beautifully demonstrates the Resurrection does any of the above. The film clearly shows that Christ's death was His voluntarily giving His life that we might be saved through His overcoming death.







Honestly, where is he coming from here? The Lord was a victim, but He was also the victor. If He were not made to be a victim for us, there would be no victory. "...we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Cor 1:23). I have seen that the same is true today. We who desire "to know nothing... except Jesus Christ and him crucified" still see that the Cross is an embarassment to many (1 Cor 2:1-3). It is human nature to look to the end and forget the road traveled to get there, but we cannot forget that is what the Crucifixion is about. That is what the Eucharist is. By becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4) are enabled to make up "in [our] flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church" ( Col. 1:24). We become "living sacrifices," and indeed that is what Christ was on the Cross. Through His life, death, and glourious Resurrection, He gave us a share in His life. A study on the Passion is a study of the road Christ took for our salvation, and indeed, the period of time depicted in "The Passion of the Christ" is the Crossroads of all our lives. It depicts where we all come together as we participate in the Eucharist, the cornerstone of our faith. God bless Mel Gibson for sharing his faith.

God Bless,

Neal

Well said...

 

[countrymousenc]

I asked:

According to Orthodoxy, was the Passover lamb a prototype of Christ?

And TWells answered

Yes

Would someone be willing to either explain what this typological relationship means in Orthodox theology or direct me to a source (preferably a website) where I can read an explanation?

I apologize for being a bit off topic: I realize that the original topic is punishment whereas I'm asking about substitutionary atonement theology. I appreciate any answers offered.

 

[brewmama]

I found an interesting discussion on this: (from Touchstone)



UNPASSIONATE GREEKS:

An Orthodox friend sent round a story on the condemnation of The Passion by the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Chicago, which sent a letter to its parishes warning them about the movie.



"It distorts the gospel message," said the Very Rev. Demetri Kantzavelos, chancellor of the Chicago diocese, which includes 59 parishes in Illinois and five other Midwestern states. "The errors that deviate from the gospel are profound."

"My fear is that this might be the only 'gospel' that people see or read," he said.

. . . A critique of the film also released by Kantzavelos for the diocese said Gibson's interpretation of the death of Jesus "distorted the ultimate meaning of Christ's passion" and was "beyond the embrace of Orthodox Christianity."

"The Orthodox Christian tradition has never focused attention on nor explicitly promulgated an 'atonement theology' as central to church teachings," Kantzavelos wrote in the critique. "The point of Christ's death was to triumph over death and make a way for each of us who come after him to join with him.

"The film misses this point," he wrote. "In Orthodox Christianity, we are asked to identify with his victory, not with his suffering alone."
My friend sent round this note:


This morning the Greek Archdiocese of Chicago condemned Mel Gibson's movie, thus adding its own voice that of the Jews. For a biblical perspective on this most recent development, I refer you to First Corinthians 1:23.
Which reads (I am using the Orthodox Study Bible, which seems appropriate):


. . . but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness.

—David Mills

 

[brewmama]

A MORE PASSIONATE GREEK:

A Greek Orthodox priest writes in response to yesterday's "Unpassionate Greeks":



I am not surprised by the reaction in the Greek Orthodox critique of "The Passion" by Fr. Demetri Kantsavelos. After nearly 44 years as an Orthodox priest it is my observation that usually Orthodox clergy and spokespersons seem compelled to negatively respond to almost anything that doesn't originate from the Orthodox Church, in an attempt to always emphasize their difference from Catholicism and Protestantism. Whatever the circumstances, whatever the presentation, however true to the Gospels, they will always find something wrong with anything that they haven't originated.

While the "sacred Passion" in Orthodoxy stresses the triumphal voluntary passion of Christ, Who is the Lord of Glory, even in His extreme humility, there is also in the Orthodox Fathers, albeit in later centuries, a devotion centered on the Passion. To insist that there is this one and only understanding of the "atonement" is to betray an ignorance of the entire Orthodox Theological corpus through the centuries. Since the 1950's the trend, especially in the Greek Church, is to attempt to rid contemporary Orthodox Theology from "Latinizing" influences.

In my opinion, that group and many in their company fail to appreciate even the richness of our common Christian heritage, both Orthodox and Western, because of their limited perspective. Once again, I am saddened and disappointed by this.

—David Mills
9:21 AM

 

[brewmama]

A PASSIONATE ANGLICAN:

Another response to yesterday's "Unpassionate Greeks," this one from our contributing editor the Rev'd Robert Hart, a priest of the Anglican Diocese of the Chesapeake:



Having a younger brother who is a very accomplished Orthodox theologian, and having read many an e-mail from Patrick Henry Reardon over the years, I can safely conclude that the Chicago Greek Orthodox bishop was not truly representing the theology of the Orthodox Church by warning parishes against Mel Gibson's movie.

Having seen the movie this evening, and having been quite unable to do so without tears, I believe that The Passion of the Christ is a film that is needed, and very badly needed right now as a corrective to a crossless Christianity. People who confuse their own "sprituality" with faithfulness, who see the subject of ordination as tied to a concept of "rights" or power, who believe that the meaning of the Gospel is to be found in the popular preaching of "faith and prosperity" doctrines, who water down the message of Christ in "seeker sensitive churches", need to ask what St. Paul was warning against by speaking of "enemies of the cross of Christ." He did not say that they were enemies of Christ, but of His cross; they could speak well of Jesus, but they could never follow Him, or aid anyone else to do so.

Especially, I believe that all of the ladies, of both sexes, who have been selling or buying "Precious Moments" Bibles and other goods, should be forced to sit through this whole movie, with their eyes taped open.

—David Mills
9:25 AM

 

[brewmama]

A FOURTH RESPONSE TO THE UNPASSIONATE GREEKS:

Another Orthodox priest responds to the Orthodox Diocese of Chicago's criticism of The Passion, quoted in yesterday's "Unpassionate Greeks":



I understand Fr. Demetri's objection, but he doesn't really understand why he objects in the way that he does. Orthodox sensibility, it's iconic tradition, simply doesn't focus on the suffering of Christ with the same graphic intensity that Gibson's traditional Catholicism does. These are hard images for Orthodox believers familiar with their liturgical tradition to place in any coherent frame of reference.

Where Fr. Demetri errors, is assuming that the emphasis on the crucifixion in the movie is all the makes up Catholic traditionalism. In his criticism of that tradition, he compounds the error by masking the centrality of the cross in the Christian gospel. If he understood both Catholicism and Orthodoxy better than he does, he would see that he confuses a Christian sensibility, an approach of worship and piety, with doctrinal issues.

One other point. Fr. Demetri is worried that "this is the only Gospel that people will hear" in a letter to the Greek Orthodox faithful in the Chicago Diocese. Don't they hear in Church?
As a Catholic, I appreciate this and the other two responses from Orthodox readers. My own experience is, as the writer quoted below in "A more passionate Greek" said, that many "Orthodox clergy and spokespersons seem compelled to negatively respond to almost anything that doesn't originate from the Orthodox Church." Some will use almost anything to make a debating point and throw down the weakest argument as if they were slapping a royal flush down on the poker table and raking in all the chips.

Converts are by far the worst at doing this, as you would guess. I can understand their joy in sharing what they've found in Orthodoxy, and I can even understand their wanting to make clear its superiority (speaking from their point of view) to the alternatives, but I do find it trying that they give Western Christianity the back of their hand, as if it's too absurd or defective to bother with. Their arguments are often embarassingly inept and (or) ignorant.

I think this treatment of other Christians often a sin against charity, but at the very least, it is an intellectual mistake. It is a mistake from their point of view. If they want to make the best argument for Orthodoxy, they have to deal seriously with the best arguments for the alternatives. If they don't, they are in fact tacitly accepting the superiority of the alternatives' arguments and claims. They are like an invading army ignoring the other country's forces and instead attacking a bunch of boys playing soldiers down the road, and declaring they'd conquered the country when they'd only defeated boys armed with water pistols and tree branches.

The benefit of taking the others seriously is a degree of greater unity rather than greater division. True ecumenism grows in part from the serious encounter with the best representatives and the best arguments other Christians offer, in doing which you discover that you disagree not only with a massive and serious tradition but with very learned and holy people. You will continue thinking that on some crucial matters your Church is right and theirs is wrong, but you will understand better how they can hold their errors with integrity and with a love of the Lord and his Church as great as yours.

—David Mills
11:05

 

[Benedicta00]

Can someone please let me know if this quote from “The Orthodox Church” by Bishop Kallistos Ware is a accurate view of EO belief? What position is the bishop taking here? Substitutionary atonement and separation from God or is he being quoted out of context? Here is the quote:

"If the Crucifixion was the only means God could find to redeem us, then he must be limited in his power and wisdom....God is God, and his wisdom and might know no bounds. Of course he could have found another way to save us." This might sounds logical on the surface, but in fact this oversimplification ignores another of God's infinite attributes, which is his justice, and justice says, "You don't accept apples when oranges are due." What is the penalty for sin? Death and separation from God. What must the sinless substitute experience to satisfy justice? Death and separation from God. Thus, Christ's death and separation from God on the cross were absolutely necessary for the accomplishment of our salvation.

 

[MariaRegina]

Here's a more favorable review:

"The Passion" and the Spirits of Lesser Men: A pastoral reflection

Fr. George N. Patides

They said that Mel Gibson's "Passion" was anti-Semitic, but I didn't see it. I didn't see an anti-Roman bias either and there were a lot of Roman characters too. What you see instead is a dark side of people, where the malice of gossip and political subterfuge lead to murder.

Every nationality been tainted by lesser men. Albert Einstein said, “Great spirits have often been violently encumbered by mediocre minds.” That happened in a way with Jesus Christ. It continues today.

As a former pastor in the Greek Orthodox Church, I have seen how this dark side manifests itself through the casual assassination of character by rival groups. I have also seen church leaders look the other way, especially if a politically or financially powerful group is the assassin. These groups can be small but their effects can be painful and widespread. I confess that I have also compromised my priesthood and personal character by doing the same thing or by looking the other way.

Margaret Thatcher said, “Consensus sometimes means an absence of leadership.” Put differently, violence is often advanced by a mob mentality. We still struggle with the same human shortcomings that we see in the film. No matter what our position in society might be, or whether we attend a church, synagogue, or temple, a heinous sin is the malice of gossip and political subterfuge. And this behavior continues when the perpetrators are not held accountable.

Perhaps the negative reaction to this film comes from the reminder that we accountable to God. The lesson is to temper our impulses and reference every thought and action to God. We are accountable to Him. Maybe the occurrences of malice and gossip and the violence that arises from them can be less.

Notice that the title of the film says "the Christ," not just "Christ." The extra "the" is important. It proclaims “He is the Messiah, He is God”. The movie in vivid and even violent ways illustrates how this Messiah and God knows the pain of the unjust actions of lesser men yet still loves and forgives them.

George N. Patides has a BA in Philosophy, and a Masters in Theology/Divinity studies. He is a retired Greek Orthodox Church priest living in the Tampa Bay area. Mail can be sent to 13800 Park Blvd., Seminole, FL 33776.

Copyright © 2004 George N. Patides.
Posted 12/27/04

Articles written by Fr. Johannes Jacobse may be reprinted with this copyright limitation attached:

Copyright © 2002. Johannes L. Jacobse. For more articles visit www.orthodoxytoday.org.

 

[MariaRegina]

Can someone please let me know if this quote from “The Orthodox Church” by Bishop Kallistos Ware is a accurate view of EO belief? What position is the bishop taking here? Substitutionary atonement and separation from God or is he being quoted out of context? Here is the quote:

"If the Crucifixion was the only means God could find to redeem us, then he must be limited in his power and wisdom....God is God, and his wisdom and might know no bounds. Of course he could have found another way to save us." This might sounds logical on the surface, but in fact this oversimplification ignores another of God's infinite attributes, which is his justice, and justice says, "You don't accept apples when oranges are due." What is the penalty for sin? Death and separation from God. What must the sinless substitute experience to satisfy justice? Death and separation from God. Thus, Christ's death and separation from God on the cross were absolutely necessary for the accomplishment of our salvation.

Dear Michelle:

Please cite the page number from The Orthodox Church so we can read it in context.

 

[Benedicta00]

Dear Michelle:

Please cite the page number from The Orthodox Church so we can read it in context.

I can’t. A Calvin person privately e mailed me who is not a member of this forum and used this to claim that his opinion of Christ being forsaken was also a shared belief of this bishop. I said to him that I think he is wrong…

 

[MariaRegina]

I can’t. A Calvin person privately e mailed me who is not a member of this forum and used this to claim that his opinion of Christ being forsaken was also a shared belief of this bishop. I said to him that I think he is wrong…

Please email him back and ask for the proper reference.

 

[Benedicta00]

Please email him back and ask for the proper reference.

K.

 

[Oblio]

BTW - TOC is available online.

 

[Benedicta00]

BTW - TOC is available online.

That is more than likely the source he is reading. He has been looking into Orthodoxy for a bit now on the internet. He just wanted to share that he found what he thinks is a EO agreeing with him because myself and someone else basically said he was really reaching, thinking that God forsaked Christ and broke fellowship with him. I don't see what he sees in that quote. I think he is leaving a whole other explanation out that would clarify.

 

[Lotar]

How can God forsake God? I've always believed that at that moment Christ took on the sins of the world, but not that God literally forsook Him.