Hi there!
I read a very good overview on the Orthodox understanding of salvation (written contra the Protestant notion of it being a once-for-all, moment-in-time event) written by Pope Shenouda III. I, for one, can't find any point anywhere that it conflicts with Eastern Orthodox thought on the matter.
However, he made one statement that kind of threw me...I want to see whether I'm misreading or misunderstanding it. The book is here:
http://www.saint-mary.net/books/Salvation in the Orthodox Concept.pdf
[/INDENT]
It
sounds startlingly close to "penal substitution" or at least an "Anselmian" sort of satisfaction theory. Would it be right to say that this document sees the "infinite payment of infinite debt" as an aspect of the whole picture of salvation? Typically I've seen Orthodox writers stridently reject any notion of crime-punishment as "Western legalism." But I often wonder whether it's being overly rejected in reaction against the Catholic (and later, Protestant) Church.
Anyway...what do you desert types think?
Much appreciated!
I think what often gets forgotten is that the Early Church didn't necessarily have a mindset that
was opposite of crime-punishment entirely - for God is Justice...but he is also Mercy and focused on Healing when it comes to sickness.
To have some things established before going further,
According to Anselm,
"Nothing can be added to or taken from the honor of God. For this honor which belongs to him is in no way subject to injury or change...And [the sinner] disturbs the order and beauty of the universe, as relates to himself, although he cannot injure nor tarnish the power and majesty of God...It is then plain that no one can honor or dishonor God, as he is in himself; but the creature, as far as he is concerned, appears to do this when he submits or opposes his will to the will of God." This is an objective fact since the idea that God can be dishonored is an obvious anthropomorphism -- the Bible does that a lot, in trying to present God in a way we can understand Him according to our limited capacity as creatures. Anselm does not actually teach that God Himself somehow loses honor or has honor robbed from Him in any way....
That said....
St Peter writes concerning Christ "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." (1 Peter 2:24). And when it comes to substitution, I cannot avoid where it seems clear in the understanding of the Saints. I was actually happy to hear Bishop Suriel in his podcasts talk about salvation in a manner approaching the penal substitution theory - more in the podcast entitled
Jesus the God of Love and Salvation. The thing that appeals to me about it is that it makes sense..for if God is infinitely holy then our sins infinitely offend Him, so there is an infinite reparation that needs to be made. Jesus was fully man, so He could take our place, and fully God, so that He could pay the infinite price of our reparation. ..for ALL time as the Book of Hebrews notes when showing the sheer scope of the Atonement and why it was significant for Christ to have the FINAL Sacrifice made.
In multiple respects, the Oriental Orthodox View is deeply rooted in the
Christus Victor model (i.e. believing that in his death and ressurection Christ defeated the powers of evil and set us free..that Christ was meant to defeat death, by death and restore the image of God within man that was lost at the Fall), which has its roots in the E.O.C. and the early church fathers (and for that matter, is
a view shared by many in the Protestant world as well - especially
with the Anabaptist view)....but it has aspects from the Substitution model that tend to be emphasized at certain points.
Indeed, after the Fall, the Image of God in man, which was never lost, was healed; the likeness, which was lost, was restored. Both Eastern and Western theology make a distinction between "image" and "likeness"...although it wasn't until more recent times that the line between "image" and "likeness" became somewhat blurred.
But it does seem that many in the Eastern tradition have reacted to that blurring of distinctions - and created another scenario which is not adhered to when it comes to any talk of substitution. There are a number of Western theologies of redemption/atonement, a fact Orthodox polemics often ignores.....for the mystery of the cross is so rich and beautiful that no mere human explanation could ever capture all that it entails...and truthfully, the Oriental Orthodox approach to atonement tends to be closer to the Latin approach than the Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox one at various approaches...
Christ's death on the Cross was offered as a ransom to the Father through the Spirit for our disobedience (which is what sin is) - seeing that all mankind was held captive by the Enemy ( Acts 10:37-39, Hebrews 2:13-15 / Hebrews 2, 1 John 3:7-9 ). The ransom was, in a wider sense, given to the grave which held sinful humanity prior to the Redemption. By dying, and offering His life, signified by the shedding of His Blood, Christ entered into the grave and "bought" us out, so to speak.......legally allowing mankind to be restored fully to what He had lost (as man gave up that in exchange for bondage to the enemy and the Son of Man - the Second Adam- had to undo that as it concerns payment). He crushed death by His Divinity and by rising to heaven in His deified Humanity, which is our humanity as well, He brought us with Him to the Right Hand of the Father. Being the Divine Image of the Father, Christ restored God's image in us that was tarnished by sin and offers to us the opportunity to live in Him and experience His salvation and divinization through His Body and in the Holy Spirit.
In all of that, God the Father is not an "angry God." I appreciate how one theologian once wrote that God the Father sent His Son not only so that His Son might suffer, but that He also might suffer - for after all, what causes more suffering: to go yourself or to send your Son? However, one might interpret that, that is something truly impactful to me.....for God cried/grieved when His Son gave up His life - yet it pleased the Lord to crush him since we'd be redeemed and spared from the Lord treating us as our sins deserve.
Adam's sin had a consequence, which is Divine Justice, that all men were to suffer death on account of Adam's sin. And Jesus Christ became the second Adam and suffered death on behalf of all men, thereby nullifying the effect of death upon all of humankind. Jesus Christ submitted himself to the satisfaction of Divine Justice, which was death, for the purpose of defeating death. No one can cannot ignore this since scripture is immensely explicit and it'd be a caricature to assume that it's simply a "Western mindset" or a matter of Westerners being merely juridical.
Adam was dead along with his descendants not because sin is infinite. But because sin was directed to the infinite Who punished him with an eternal death. ....this eternal death required God, the infinite, to abolish. Thus, when the Son died on the cross, He, being infinite, satisfied the punishment in place of Adam and thus was able to restore him back. This idea of one dying in place of another to bestow life was taught by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden when He made garments of skin. Later, God instituted the sacrificial system to teach mankind the idea of redemption. Finally, He appeared in the last days as the ultimate sacrifice.
As
St Gregory the Theologian said about the "ransom.".:
Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice.
We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause?
If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, then it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether!
But if to God the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only-begotten Son delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being sacrificed by his father, [Abraham,] but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim? (See Gen 22).
Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant (i.e., the devil) and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son who also arranged this to the honor of the Father, whom it is manifest He obeys in all things.
The healing of humanity, and our subsequent deification via Theosis, is necessarily the result of Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection. It's not, however, the necessary result of Christ defeating evil. One can simply read St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" to understand - as it has to do with the Incarnate Word taking flesh, and sanctifying humanity from corruption, and our being joined with him. Further, the Fathers speak of sacrificial and substitutionary elements of the Atonement that would not be addressed with a solely
Christus Victor atonement. Many aspects of the atonement (minus Penal Substitution/Satisfaction Theory) must be considered together to fully understand the atonement since you cannot just ascribe to "Christus Victor" to present an Orthodox atonement.
Honestly, I think it is regrettable when certain Orthodox theologians dispute this, as it is needlessly polemical and distorting - for the rhetoric of "being saved from God" is rather an unfair distortion of what many Protestants actually believe. For what it's worth, I don't care for explaining the atonement in terms of penal substitution... but I don't see it as wrong per se. Christus Victor is a good model to consider - but Christ is only a victor if he had to deal with something. Otherwise there is no atonement, reconciliation to God, going on for the believer. The Cross is not merely dealing with death, but it is also dealing with sin and disobedience. ....for God is Holy/Perfect - and in light of the numerous scriptures of us being saved from God's Wrath (Ephesians 2:8-13, Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:5-7, Romans 9:21-23, Romans 2:4-6, etc.), to divorce the Atonement from a matter of the Lord taking out the consequences of our sin (which do deserve death) unto the Messiah so that we could be purified has to be taken into account.
There is definitely a place in the early Fathers for the idea that Christ is punished in our place or for us.
For places giving good review on the issue, one can go to
Divine Justice - by Coptic Christian Hany Mina Mikhail ...or to the following:
As said best there:
St. Athanasius, for quite a long time, has been used by theologians who adopted the Western juridical interpretation, as a good model to defend both the Theory of Satisfaction of Divine justice and the Theory of Penal Substitution. Both theories are now heavily criticised by Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and even Protestant theologians; more so in the last twenty years. The difference, however, between the juridical interpretations and that of most of the Early Fathers, is essentially a difference in interpretation and not of dogma, for we all believe in one Creed:
For us and for our Salvation
He was incarnated,
was crucified,
suffered death,
arose from the dead
and ascended to the Heavens
. The difference is in trying to work out models, to simplify, through them, how did Christs incarnation - death - and resurrection manage to save us. This work, of Salvation, is anyhow beyond any human description, language or comprehension !!!
We can only reject what is incompatible with Orthodox teaching, but not claim full comprehension.
