Orthodox view of Christ's sacrifice

[Reader Nilus]

Our Lord died to defeat death. By rising from the dead Our Lord defeated death, opened the way to paradise once again. He saved us from death, he saved all of humankind from death. Orthodox do not view this as a legal arrangement, but one of defeating the foe which is death. See Gustav Aulen's Christus Victor for the classic Christian view of the atonement before Anslem.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Rick of Wessex]

Dear G4m,

In fact, there's no need to be confused.

The quote below, taken from Bp. Alexander's article

"The fishermen of Galilee attest with utmost simplicity that the incarnate, Only-Begotten Son of God voluntarily took upon Himself the guilt of mankind and suffered for it by a humiliating and tormented death on the Cross. He took on Himself the punishment we were supposed to receive."

is in complete agreement with Orthodox theology. I double-checked with two priests when I translated it to Portuguese.

And while it does use some terminology that is not "standard," such as "guilt" - in general it is a collection of paraphrases from Scripture itself. And the final sentence is purely Orthodox - we do not attempt to explain why such a horrible sacrifice was required.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that while Anselm's theology takes a different perspective from that of the eastern Church Fathers, in general his works are certainly not heretical (i.e., they do not teach a wrong doctrine).

I guess this is just a matter of different, but not necessarily conflicting, point of views (Western Medieval x Eastern Orthodox).

Hope this helps.

Yours in XC,
Rick

 

[countrymousenc]

Dear G4m,

In fact, there's no need to be confused.

The quote below, taken from Bp. Alexander's article



is in complete agreement with Orthodox theology. I double-checked with two priests when I translated it to Portuguese.

And while it does use some terminology that is not "standard," such as "guilt" - in general it is a collection of paraphrases from Scripture itself. And the final sentence is purely Orthodox - we do not attempt to explain why such a horrible sacrifice was required.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that while Anselm's theology takes a different perspective from that of the eastern Church Fathers, in general his works are certainly not heretical (i.e., they do not teach a wrong doctrine).

I guess this is just a matter of different, but not necessarily conflicting, point of views (Western Medieval x Eastern Orthodox).

Hope this helps.

Yours in XC,
Rick

Well, now it's my turn to be just a little confused, because I keep (at least here on the board) reading different opinions about this. Could it be that we're really talking about a difference of emphasis?

 

[Photini]

A quick trip to GA and you will see the outcome of Anselm's view of the atonement. The atheists there are constantly calling "the Christian God" bloodthirsty, unfair, cruel and evil.

 

[Rick of Wessex]

Hello, Photini!

A quick trip to GA and you will see the outcome of Anselm's view of the atonement. The atheists there are constantly calling "the Christian God" bloodthirsty, unfair, cruel and evil.

I didn't know there were so many active atheists in Georgia!

Now, serioulsy, I believe Anselm's writings have opened the way to some legalistic views of Christ's sacrifice, because he tried to find an explanation to something that cannot be explained. A colateral effect of Medieval Scholastics, I'd say.

However, it is not herectic per se because it not conflicting with what great Eastern Fathers, such as Ss. John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Jerusalem had written before. However, unlike Anselm, they don't overemphasize just one aspect of Christ's sacrifice.

As I said, it's a matter of point of view. Strange? Medieval to the core? I guess so, but in the end, it is a reflection of his (Western) world view.

 

[countrymousenc]

A quick trip to GA and you will see the outcome of Anselm's view of the atonement. The atheists there are constantly calling "the Christian God" bloodthirsty, unfair, cruel and evil.

"The wages of sin is death..." I have a hard time seeing what is cruel or unfair about that, so I wouldn't give the atheists accusations much creedence. I do see a problem with logic in the western view of substitutionary atonement in Christ's death, but that He took our sins upon Himself, became sin on our behalf as the only truly adequate and efficacious sacrifice is what the Bible says. The Bible also says that there is no forgiveness for sin without the shedding of blood. I don't claim to understand it, but who am I to protest?

 

[Photini]

"The wages of sin is death..." I have a hard time seeing what is cruel or unfair about that, so I wouldn't give the atheists accusations much creedence. I do see a problem with logic in the western view of substitutionary atonement in Christ's death, but that He took our sins upon Himself, became sin on our behalf as the only truly adequate and efficacious sacrifice is what the Bible says. The Bible also says that there is no forgiveness for sin without the shedding of blood. I don't claim to understand it, but who am I to protest?

Certainly. The problem is that there seems to be a certain weakness in this when left "as is", or when the substitutionary view of atonement is used alone and apart from the Orthodox theology. One thing I've noticed, is that Christ, when speaking in parables, would often use two or more parables to explain something. I believe this gives a fuller understanding of what He was trying to explain to us. Likewise, there are different "perspectives" to view Christ's sacrifice for us from. When all taken together, you have a more wholesome understanding.

 

[Rick of Wessex]

Christ is Risen!

Dear Countrymousenc,

Well, now it's my turn to be just a little confused, because I keep (at least here on the board) reading different opinions about this. Could it be that we're really talking about a difference of emphasis?

Let me put it this way. We Orthodox do not agree with Anselm's point of view because it is excessively legalistic and tends to overemphasize one aspect of Jesus' sacrifice in detriment of the other, leading to, as Photini's just said, a partial understanding of Christ's attonement.

So, yes, viewing Our Lord's sacrifice exclusively in this way would be wrong and completely alien to Orthodox theology. And besides, it could give margin to ridiculous interpretations (such as "God is cruel").

But as long as this is a matter of different emphasis, it is not heresy. However, if Anselm completely denied the other aspects of Christ's suffering (specially His victory over death and sin and the restablishment of our communion to the Father) then yes, one could say his writings are herectical.

To make a long story short - we Orthodox simply do not agree with Anselm because we believe his perspective is incomplete.

Your brother in XC,
Rick

 

[Rick of Wessex]

Another good article is this, written by matushka Frederica Mathewes-Green,
The meaning of His suffering

She offers a worderful explanation of Orthodox perspective regarding Christ's sacrifice.

Your brother in XC,
Rick

 

[G4m]

I mean Eastern Orthodox vs western Christian doctrine in general.

Oh, OK, thanks.

 

[Rilian]

Another good article is this, written by matushka Frederica Mathewes-Green,
The meaning of His suffering

She offers a worderful explanation of Orthodox perspective regarding Christ's sacrifice.

Your brother in XC,
Rick

I read the article and one thing does seem odd that Khouria Frederica said:

The account of physical action is so brisk that, back when I was in seminary, I asked one of my professors why we presume Jesus was nailed to the Cross, rather than bound with ropes. He supposed it was because Paul later refers to redemption through Christ’s blood.

All of the icons I've ever seen have shown Christ as being nailed to the cross. It would also contradict the story of Thomas as reported in the Gospel of John.

I think I've said it before but the real problem I have with the Anselmian view is that it places all of the redemptive work on the cross. The substitution model on its own could pretty much stand only with the crucifixion, because in it the suffering does away with sin, not the rising from death.

One of the most interesting views of the Atonement and the nature of sacrifice I've run across is that of the Catholic scholar Rene Girard. To roughly paraphrase, he views the punitive aspect of the Atonement as an act of mimetic, or imitative violence; whereas in his thinking Christ came to end such views. A good introduction is here - Theory of Violence, Religion and the Scapegoat.

 

[Lotar]

Okay, now I'm confused

General question:
Are you saying you do believe in atonement, but just don't emphasize it?

 

[Rilian]

Okay, now I'm confused

General question:
Are you saying you do believe in atonement, but just don't emphasize it?

Hey Lotar, not sure if you're asking me, but I was the last poster before you. Anyhow, I think the problem is not emphasizing the Atonement, but it's which aspect of the Atonement is being emphasized. There are various "theories", or perhaps better said views of the Atonement. Traditionally in Orthodoxy the primary view of the Atonement is that of victory, although other views are not discounted and there can be many ways of understanding the awesome mystery of Christ's death and Resurrection. I think the complaint in general is that in the west a one sided and stilted view of the Atonement developed that gave rise to a deeply flawed and ethically suspect soteriology.

 

[Lotar]

It seems to me the difference is that we emphasize atonement, and you emphasize victory over death, though we both believe in both.

 

[Rilian]

It seems to me the difference is that we emphasize atonement, and you emphasize victory over death, though we both believe in both.

The victory is an aspect of the Atonement, not something separate from it. Ultimately what we're talking about is reconciliation with God, that's what Atonement is. Orthodoxy emphasizes the victorious rising of Christ and the release from the bondage of death and sin. The criticism of the West is that it focuses on the suffering as effecting the release.

 

[Kripost]

It seems to me the difference is that we emphasize atonement, and you emphasize victory over death, though we both believe in both.

I think it is better to say that the East emphasizes defeating death by death, while the West emphasizes 'repayment' or 'ransom' for sin. And both are 2 aspects of the atonement.

 

[Rilian]

Just another thing to add, I don't want to appear to be simply browbeating "the West" on this. A lot of the arguments are from a historical perspective; although they can still be seen in cartoonish form in the guise of things like Chick Tracts and generally are still prominent in more mainstream evangelical thinking. There is a lot of diversity in how the Atonement is viewed in Western theology. I mentioned Rene Girard who is Catholic, and I've also mentioned two works that shifted much of my thinking that were done by Lutherans, "Christus Victor" by Gustaf Aulen and "The Crucified God" by Jurgen Moltmann.

 

[countrymousenc]

Through reading and discussion, what I'm finding is that the difference is a difference of emphasis and that the emphasis makes a difference. What I'm experiencing in Orthodoxy is a theology of victory and hope. It isn't that there is none of that in Western theology, just that an overemphasis on the juridical aspects (in my experience) tends toward an emphasis on future and final salvation, whereas Orthodox theology leads into the eternal now (out of chronos and into kairos) and brings that now to us as well. To learn to live in that eternal now invites us to practice choosing charity over self and make all our activities, here and now in this life, offerings to God. It is a theology of real joy, because we can have real salvation day by day (which we need!). Although I am far short of the mark, I am experiencing as never before the hope and assurance that this is, by God's grace, truly possible!

 

[Patristic]

Remember atonement and redemption are two different terms with different overall meanings and used in different contexts in Scripture. I have come to understand the process of redemption to include incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. On the other hand, I view atonement as an event that took place on Calvary. Christ's suffering and death accomplished atonement which requires sacrifice and the shedding of blood, but this act was only one element in the overall chain of redemption.

 

[Lotar]

Remember atonement and redemption are two different terms with different overall meanings and used in different contexts in Scripture. I have come to understand the process of redemption to include incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. On the other hand, I view atonement as an event that took place on Calvary. Christ's suffering and death accomplished atonement which requires sacrifice and the shedding of blood, but this act was only one element in the overall chain of redemption.

That's the same thing we believe.